a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

November 2005 ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION

More Complete Data 

and Continued 

Emphasis on Leak 

Prevention Could 

Improve EPA’s 

Underground Storage 

Tank Program

GAO-06-45
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

November 2005

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

More Complete Data and Continued 

Emphasis on Leak Prevention Could 

Improve EPA’s Underground Storage 

Tank Program 

Highlights of GAO-06-45, a report to 

congressional requesters 

Leaking underground storage tanks 

that contain hazardous products,

primarily gasoline, can contaminate 

soil and groundwater. To address 

this problem, the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), under its 

Underground Storage Tank (UST) 

Program, required tank owners to

install leak detection equipment 

and take measures to prevent

leaks. In 1986, the Congress 

created a federal trust fund to

assist states with cleanups. 

Cleanup progress has been made,

but, as of early 2005, cleanup

efforts had not yet begun for over

32,000 tanks, many of which may 

require state and/or federal

resources to address.

GAO identified (1) data on the 

number and cleanup status of 

leaking tanks, (2) funding sources

for tank cleanups, and (3) 

processes used by five states with

large numbers of leaking tanks—

California, Maryland, Michigan, 

North Carolina, and Pennsylvania

—to identify, assess, and clean up

sites. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that EPA require 

states to report to the agency

information on all known 

abandoned tanks. EPA agreed that

the UST program could benefit 

from more specific data on

abandoned tanks, but had concerns 

about the potential burden on

states. GAO clarified its 

recommendation to indicate that 

EPA should obtain data that states

currently compile. 

Data submitted to EPA by the states show that, as of March 31, 2005, more 

than 660,000 tanks were in use and about 1.6 million were no longer in use. 

In addition, states identified about 449,000 tank releases (leaks) and about 

416,000 initiated cleanups, with almost 324,000 of those cleanups completed. 

States also compile limited data on abandoned tanks—tanks whose owners 

are unknown, or unwilling or unable to pay for their cleanup—but EPA does 

not require states to provide separate data on all of their known abandoned 

tanks. Without this separate data, EPA cannot effectively determine the 

number and cleanup status of these tanks, or how to most efficiently and 

effectively allocate federal cleanup funds to the states. 

Tank owners and operators are primarily responsible for paying to clean up 

their own sites, but abandoned tanks are cleaned up using state resources, 

that may be limited, and federal trust funds. EPA estimates that the average 

remediation costs per site have been about $125,000, but costs sometimes 

have exceeded $1 million. Officials from two of the five states we contacted 

reported that their state funds may be inadequate to address contamination 

at abandoned tank sites. In this regard, Michigan and North Carolina officials 

told GAO that, because of resource constraints, they let contamination at 

abandoned tank sites attenuate (diminish) naturally once immediate threats 

are addressed. Furthermore, due to limited resources, states must 

sometimes find other options for cleaning up sites. For example,

Pennsylvania officials asked EPA to take over the cleanup work at the 

abandoned Tranguch site in 1996 because the owner was bankrupt and the 

state could not pay the expected cleanup costs. 

The five states that GAO contacted identify, assess, and clean up leaking 

tank sites using similar processes. Generally, owners and operators are 

responsible for conducting these activities under state oversight. Leaking 

tanks are identified when tank owners report leaks; land redevelopment 

activities uncover unknown tanks; or state agencies investigate 

contamination complaints or inspect tanks for regulatory compliance. While 

regular tank inspections can detect new leaks and potentially prevent future 

ones, as of early 2005, only two of the five states GAO contacted—California

and Maryland—consistently inspected all the state’s tanks at least once

every 3 years, the minimum rate of inspection that EPA considers adequate.

The Energy Policy Act, enacted in August 2005, among other things, requires 

inspections at least once every 3 years and provides federal trust funds for 

this and other leak prevention purposes. EPA and some state officials told 

GAO that increasing inspection frequency could require additional 

resources. Being able to use trust fund allocations for this purpose will help 

in this regard. The five states GAO contacted, once they become aware of 

leaking tanks, identify responsible parties and require them to hire 

consultants to conduct site assessments and plan and implement cleanup 

work. The states generally prioritize sites for cleanup according to the 

immediate threat they pose to human health, safety, and/or the environment.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-45.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact John

Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or

stephensonj@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

States Provide EPA with Some Tank and Cleanup Data, but Do Not 

Provide Separate Information on All Known Abandoned Tanks 8

Several Funding Sources Exist For Cleaning Up Tank Releases, but 

Some States’ Resources for Remediating Abandoned Tank Sites 

Are Limited 10

States Identify, Assess, and Clean Up Leaking Tank Sites Using 

Similar Means 21

Conclusions 28

Recommendations for Executive Action 29

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 29

Appendixes

Appendix I: Information on the History and Status of Cleanup Activities 

at Five Underground Storage Tank Sites 33

Coca-Cola Enterprises, Yuba County, California 33

Henry Fruhling Food Store, Harford County, Maryland 36

Bob’s Marathon, Grand Ledge, Michigan 41

R.C. Anderson Trust, Nash County, North Carolina 46

Tranguch Tire Service, Inc., Luzerne County, Pennsylvania 50

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 68

Appendix III: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency 73

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 75

Tables Table 1: Key Data on Underground Storage Tanks, as of March 31, 

2005 9

Table 2: Five States’ Funding from EPA's LUST Trust Fund, the 

Amounts and Percentages of These Funds Used To Clean 

Up Tank Sites, and Estimated Amounts of Each State’s 

Own Funds Spent on Tank Cleanups, Fiscal Year 2004a 17

Figure Figure 1: Annual Confirmed Releases from Underground Storage 

Tanks, Cleanups Initiated, and Cleanups Completed, 

Fiscal Years 1997 Through 2004 6
Contents

Page ii GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

Abbreviations

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

BTEX benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene, xylenes

DEHNR North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and 

Natural Resources 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

GAG Group Against Gas

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank

MDNR Michigan Department of Natural Resources

MTBE methyl tertiary butyl ether

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan

OSC On-Scene Coordinator

PADER Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources

PADEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

PEMA Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

TPHG total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline

USACE U.S Army Corps of Engineers

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

UST Underground Storage Tank

TPHG total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

November 30, 2005 Letr

Congressional Requesters:

Leaking underground tanks that store potentially hazardous products, 

primarily gasoline at service stations, can contaminate soil as well as 

groundwater, the source of drinking water for nearly half of all Americans. 

Some components of gasoline can pose serious health risks to the 

individuals exposed to them. For example, one gasoline additive—methyl 

tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)—is a potential carcinogen that can migrate 

quickly through the soil into groundwater. Even in small amounts, MTBE 

can render groundwater undrinkable and is difficult and costly to clean up. 

According to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data, as of March 31, 

2005, about 449,000 fuel releases (leaks) had occurred from the more than 

2.2 million active (currently in use) and closed (no longer in use) federally 

regulated underground storage tanks nationwide. While progress has been 

made in cleaning up releases, cleanup efforts had not yet begun to address 

over 32,000 of them. 

To address this problem, in 1984, the Congress created the Underground 

Storage Tank (UST) Program within EPA, which subsequently established 

the Office of Underground Storage Tanks to manage the program. Under 

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), tank owners and 

operators must register with a designated state or local agency 

underground tanks that store petroleum or hazardous substances. EPA and 

the states then track and regulate these tanks. Furthermore, EPA required 

tank owners to install new leak detection equipment by the end of 1993 and 

new spill-, overfill-, and corrosion-prevention equipment by the end of 1998. 

If these conditions were not met, owners had to close or remove their 

tanks. 

Tank owners and operators are ultimately responsible for cleaning up 

contamination from their leaking tanks. However, in 1986, the Congress 

established the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund to 

provide money for (1) overseeing and enforcing cleanup actions taken by a 

tank owner or operator, and (2) cleaning up leaks at tank sites where the 

owner or operator is unknown, or unwilling or unable to take action— 

which we refer to in this report as “abandoned”—or which require 

emergency action. EPA or a state can proceed with cleanup using the LUST 

Trust Fund, and can subsequently seek reimbursement from the owners or 

operators. The fund is capitalized through a $0.001/gallon tax on gasoline 

and other motor fuels and the interest that accrues to the fund balance 
Page 2 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

annually. As of September 2004, the fund balance was about $2.2 billion. 

The Congress annually appropriates amounts from the LUST Trust Fund to 

the federal UST Program that EPA uses to negotiate and oversee 

cooperative agreements with states, implement programs on Indian lands, 

and support regional offices and state programs. Appropriations from the 

fund have been about $70 million to $76 million annually. The majority of 

these funds go to states to implement their underground storage tank 

programs. As of September 2004, EPA had approved 34 states, the District 

of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, to operate and enforce their own 

underground storage tank programs with EPA oversight and monitoring.1

Fourteen other states operate and enforce their own tank programs under 

state laws with limited EPA oversight. States receiving LUST Trust Fund 

money can spend it on cleanup and related activities. In addition, the 

Energy Policy Act, enacted in August 2005, authorizes states to use a 

portion of their federal trust funds for inspections and other leak 

prevention purposes and generally requires that states inspect their 

underground storage tanks at least once every 3 years. EPA also awards 

states annual grants to help them fund a portion of their inspection and 

enforcement costs.

In this context, we identified (1) information available on the number and 

cleanup status of leaking underground storage tanks, (2) existing sources 

of funding for cleanups at contaminated tank sites, and (3) processes used 

to identify, assess, and clean up sites in 5 states with large numbers of 

leaking tanks—California, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, and 

Pennsylvania. In addition, to provide some perspective on how leaking 

underground storage tank sites are identified and cleaned up, we are 

providing information on the history and cleanup status of one leaking tank 

site in each of these 5 states. This information is included in appendix I. 

To address these issues, we reviewed and evaluated program data from 

EPA and interviewed program officials in EPA’s Office of Underground 

Storage Tanks and EPA Regions 3 (Philadelphia), 4 (Atlanta), 5 (Chicago), 

and 9 (San Francisco). We also reviewed and evaluated data from and 

conducted interviews with state program officials in California, Maryland, 

1

EPA retains primary implementation and enforcement authority for more than 2,600 tanks 

on Indian lands and for approximately 3,500 tanks in Idaho, which does not have the 

necessary state laws in place. In addition, while New York is responsible under state law for 

tank inspections, EPA retains enforcement authority over noncompliant tanks in the state 

because New York lacks the necessary laws regarding leak, overfill, and corrosion 

protection. 
Page 3 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. In addition, we selected one 

leaking tank site in each of these 5 states for comparison of cleanup status, 

costs, and other factors. We included the Tranguch Tire Service, 

Incorporated, facility in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, among the sites in 

our review due to congressional interest. We selected the remaining 4 sites 

primarily on the basis of their high cleanup costs, cleanup status, and other 

similarities with the Tranguch site for comparison. We interviewed site 

project or incident managers and reviewed case files for each site. 

Additional information regarding our objectives, scope, and methodology is 

included in appendix II. We conducted our review between August 2004 

and November 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards, including assessing the reliability of the data we 

obtained. 

Results in Brief EPA requires states to submit data on their tanks to the agency, including 

the number of active and closed tanks, the number of confirmed tank leaks 

(referred to as releases), cleanups initiated and completed, and emergency 

responses. State data show that, as of March 31, 2005, more than 660,000 

tanks were active and about 1.6 million had been closed since the inception 

of the UST Program in 1986. In addition, the states identified about 449,000 

confirmed releases and about 416,000 initiated cleanups, with almost 

324,000 of these completed. While states also compile some data on 

abandoned tanks—tanks whose owner or operator is unknown, or 

unwilling or unable to clean up leaks—EPA does not require them to 

separately report to the agency information on the number and cleanup 

status of all of the states’ known abandoned tanks. EPA officials believe 

that the data the agency currently obtains from states are sufficient for 

general program oversight, identifying program trends, and determining the 

progress of individual states’ programs. However, without separate data on 

all known abandoned sites, EPA cannot assess whether these sites are 

being cleaned up or deferred because of a lack of funding. In addition, 

because one of the purposes of the federal LUST Trust Fund is to provide 

money for cleaning up abandoned tank sites, the lack of separate and more 

complete data on abandoned tanks limits EPA’s ability to determine how to 

most efficiently and effectively allocate trust fund dollars to the states. We 

are recommending that EPA require states to separately report to the 

agency information on the number and cleanup status of all of their known 

abandoned underground storage tanks.

Tank owners and operators are primarily responsible for paying to clean up 

their own sites, but abandoned tanks are cleaned up using available state 
Page 4 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

resources—which in some cases may be limited—and the LUST Trust 

Fund. EPA estimates that the average remediation costs per site have been 

about $125,000, but costs sometimes have exceeded $1 million. RCRA 

requires tank owners and operators to provide assurance that, if a release 

occurs, they can pay the costs of cleaning up a site and compensating third 

parties for injury and property damage. For example, an owner might 

purchase commercial insurance or participate in the state’s financial 

assurance or indemnification fund. While each state’s fund differs, in most 

cases, states capitalize their funds with tank registration and petroleum 

fees. However, abandoned tanks generally do not qualify for funding from 

commercial insurers and may not qualify for a state’s assurance fund. As a 

result, addressing contamination from abandoned tanks depends largely on 

the availability of funds from other sources, such as state appropriations 

and the federal LUST Trust Fund. Environmental officials of 2 of the 5 

states we contacted told us that their states’ funds are inadequate to 

address contamination at some abandoned tank sites and, therefore, must 

rely on LUST funding. For example, Michigan officials told us that the state 

has insufficient resources to address the backlog of about 4,200 confirmed 

releases from abandoned leaking underground storage tanks, which will 

require about $1.7 billion in public funds to remediate. Furthermore, both 

Michigan and North Carolina officials said that their states defer cleanup or 

let contamination at abandoned tank sites attenuate (diminish) naturally 

over a number of years once immediate threats are addressed because 

resource constraints preclude complete remediation. In addition, when 

emergency cleanup work was required at an abandoned site in a third 

state—Pennsylvania—in 1996, state officials asked EPA to take over the 

cleanup because the owner was bankrupt and the state could not pay the 

expected cleanup costs. Future workload increases due to as yet 

undiscovered abandoned sites could place additional demands on state and 

federal trust fund resources and exacerbate this situation. While EPA and 

states are undertaking initiatives to make cleanup efforts less expensive 

and more effective, including using contracts that tie payment to the 

accomplishment of site cleanup goals, officials from all 5 states agreed that 

additional federal funds would enhance their states’ ability to respond to 

releases from abandoned tanks. 

The 5 states that we contacted identify, assess, and clean up leaking tank 

sites using similar processes. For the most part, owners and operators are 

responsible for these activities under state oversight. Generally, the 5 states 

identify leaking tanks when (1) tank owners or operators report to the state 

that they have confirmed a release after leak detection equipment was 

activated, after they discovered a loss of product, or after they found leaks 
Page 5 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

when upgrading, replacing, or closing their tanks; (2) land redevelopment 

activities uncover unknown tanks; or (3) state environmental or health 

agencies investigate contamination complaints. Furthermore, while regular 

tank inspections provide the opportunity to detect new leaks and 

potentially prevent future ones, as of mid-2005, only 2 of the 5 

states—California and Maryland—consistently inspected all of the state’s 

tanks at least once every 3 years, the minimum inspection frequency that 

EPA considers necessary for effective tank monitoring. However, the 

Energy Policy Act, enacted in August 2005, among other things, generally 

requires inspections at least once every 3 years and authorizes federal trust 

funds to be available for this and other leak prevention purposes. These 

provisions should allow states to place greater emphasis on their leak 

detection and prevention efforts. In the 5 states we contacted, once the 

state environmental agency becomes aware of leaking tanks, it then 

identifies responsible parties and requires them to hire qualified 

environmental consultants to perform site assessments or 

characterizations and develop and implement remedial action plans to 

effectively clean up the site. All 5 state agencies prioritize most sites for 

cleanup generally according to the immediate threat they pose to human 

health, safety, and/or the environment. While states normally oversee 

cleanups, they may ask EPA to lead or support the cleanup at sites that 

present an imminent threat, that have no viable responsible party, that do 

not qualify for funding under a state plan, or for which the magnitude of the 

cost and cleanup work is beyond state resources. 

Background Data collected from the states and reported by EPA indicate that EPA and 

states have made progress in cleaning up releases from underground 

storage tanks over the past decade and a half. According to EPA, of the 

more than 447,000 releases confirmed as of the end of 2004, cleanups had 

been initiated for about 92 percent, and about 71 percent of these cleanups 

had been completed. Figure 1 shows confirmed releases from underground 

storage tanks, cleanups initiated, and cleanups completed annually from 

fiscal years 1997 through 2004. 
Page 6 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

Figure 1: Annual Confirmed Releases from Underground Storage Tanks, Cleanups 

Initiated, and Cleanups Completed, Fiscal Years 1997 Through 2004

As this figure indicates, the number of new releases confirmed annually 

declined, from about 12,000 in 2003 to less than 8,000 in 2004—about 35 

percent. However, while figure 1 shows a decline in the number of releases 

confirmed annually over the period, it also shows a decrease in the number 

of cleanups initiated and completed. According to EPA, the number of 

cleanups completed each year has generally decreased over recent years 

and fell by 23 percent—from more than 18,000 in fiscal year 2003 to just 

over 14,000—in fiscal year 2004. Furthermore, there still remains a national 

backlog of almost 130,000 cleanups yet to be completed.

EPA’s UST Program is primarily implemented by the states. EPA has 

become directly involved in program implementation only in Indian 

country and when states have been unwilling or unable to establish 

effective underground storage tank programs or to address contamination 

at specific sites. Instead, EPA’s primary role has been to establish standards 

and regulations to assist the states in implementing their programs. While 

all EPA-approved underground storage tank programs must be no less 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Cleanups completed

Cleanups initiated

Confirmed releases

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Fiscal Year

Instances in thousands

Source: GAO analysis of data collected by EPA from states.
Page 7 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

stringent than the federal program, individual aspects of each state 

program differ. For example, state time frames for conducting inspections 

vary widely. Also, while some states use only state environmental 

personnel to conduct inspections, others use state-certified private 

inspectors, or both. Furthermore, state program requirements and 

standards are sometimes more stringent and inclusive than those under the 

federal program. For example, states often regulate home heating fuel 

tanks, tanks on farms, and above-ground tanks that RCRA generally 

excludes from the federal program.2

EPA’s UST Program receives approximately $70 million each year from the 

LUST Trust Fund, about 80 percent of which is used for administering, 

overseeing, and cleaning up sites. The remaining money has been used by 

EPA for negotiating and overseeing cooperative agreements, implementing 

programs on Indian lands, and supporting regional and state offices. EPA 

spends about $6 million annually from the LUST Trust Fund on the agency’s 

program implementation, management, and oversight activities. Amounts 

distributed to the states from the fund each year vary depending primarily 

on whether they have an EPA-approved program, the total number of each 

state’s tanks, and the number of releases from those tanks. Until recently, 

states could use these funds only for cleanup and related administrative 

and enforcement activities, and EPA awarded each state about $187,000 

annually from the agency’s State and Tribal Assistance Grant account to 

help administer their programs and cover inspection and enforcement 

costs. Historically, states have used about one-third of their LUST Trust 

Fund money for administration, one-third for oversight and state-lead 

enforcement activities, and one-third for cleanups, according to EPA.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, enacted in August 2005, includes a number 

of provisions addressing issues relating to training, tank inspections, 

prohibitions on fuel deliveries to problem tanks, and funding tank 

inspections and enforcement, among others. With regard to training, the act 

requires EPA to publish guidelines specifying training requirements for 

tank operation and maintenance personnel and authorized EPA to award 

up to $200,000 to states that develop and implement training programs 

consistent with these guidelines. 

2

RCRA excludes several categories of tanks from regulation under the underground storage 

tank program, including farm and residential motor fuel tanks with a capacity of 1,100 

gallons or less, tanks for storing home heating oil, and septic tanks.
Page 8 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

In addition, the act requires EPA and any state receiving federal UST 

funding to inspect all regulated tanks not inspected since December 22, 

1998, within 2 years of the date of enactment. After these inspections are 

completed, EPA or the state must generally inspect regulated tanks once 

every 3 years. The act allows EPA to extend the first 3-year period for up to 

1 additional year if an authorized state demonstrates that it has insufficient 

resources to complete all inspections within the first 3-year period. 

Furthermore, beginning in 2007, the act prohibits deliveries to underground 

storage tanks that are not in compliance with applicable regulations and 

requires EPA and states to publish guidelines for implementing the delivery 

prohibition that would, among other things, identify the criteria for 

determining which tanks are ineligible for delivery. Finally, the act 

authorizes substantial appropriations from the trust fund during fiscal 

years 2005 through 2009 for a variety of activities, including release 

prevention, compliance, training, inspections, and enforcement.

States Provide EPA 

with Some Tank and 

Cleanup Data, but Do 

Not Provide Separate 

Information on All 

Known Abandoned 

Tanks

EPA collects data on the total number of underground storage tanks and 

the status of cleanup activities relating to these tanks from all states, and 

reports this information semiannually.3

 Table 1 shows key tank-related data 

reported by EPA as of March 31, 2005. 

3

The activity reports also include tank information for the District of Columbia and 5 

territories.
Page 9 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

Table 1: Key Data on Underground Storage Tanks, as of March 31, 2005

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.

EPA’s semiannual reports also include, among other data, the number of 

emergency response actions taken by an implementing agency, such as the 

state, to mitigate imminent threats to human health and the environment 

from an underground storage tank system.

EPA, however, does not require states to provide specific data on all known 

abandoned underground storage tanks. While abandoned tanks are 

included in the data reported to EPA, they are generally aggregated with 

the other data and cannot be separately identified. However, all 5 states we 

contacted compile some limited data on abandoned tanks and report this 

information separately to the EPA regional office that manages each state’s 

LUST Trust Fund cooperative agreement. In this regard, all 5 states 

separately report the number of initiated and completed cleanups of 

abandoned tanks using trust fund money. However, these data do not 

include separate information on cleanups of known abandoned tanks using 

state funds or any known abandoned tanks where cleanup has not yet been 

initiated. EPA officials believe that the data the agency currently obtains 

from states are sufficient for general program oversight, identifying 

program trends, and determining the progress of individual states’ 

programs. However, because states generally do not provide separate data 

on all abandoned tanks, EPA has limited ability to assess and track states’ 

Tank-related data element Number

Tanks

Active tanks 660,274

Closed tanks 1,605,711

Total Tanks 2,265,985

Leaks (releases)

Confirmed releases 448,807

Cleanups

Cleanups initiated 416,246

Cleanups completed 323,586

Cleanups ongoing 92,660

Cleanup backlog 125,221
Page 10 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

progress in cleaning up contamination from these tanks. In addition, 

although one of the primary purposes of the LUST Trust Fund is to provide 

money for cleaning up abandoned tank sites, EPA lacks information—such 

as the number of releases from known abandoned tanks in each state and 

how many of these releases have been or are being cleaned up—to help it 

determine how to most efficiently and effectively allocate funds to the 

states for this purpose. EPA allocates amounts from the fund to each state 

based, in part, on the data each currently provides, but these allocation 

decisions do not now take into account the specific number of the state’s 

abandoned sites that may require cleanup funds.4

 

Several Funding 

Sources Exist For 

Cleaning Up Tank 

Releases, but Some 

States’ Resources for 

Remediating 

Abandoned Tank Sites 

Are Limited

While tank owners and operators are primarily responsible for cleaning up 

contamination from leaks in their underground storage tanks, some states 

assist them through financial assurance or indemnification funds. These 

funds also sometimes pay for cleanups of abandoned tank sites. However, 

not all states have indemnification funds and, in 10 of the 40 states that 

have such funds, claims for cleanup cost reimbursements exceeded fund 

balances in fiscal year 2004. Consequently, EPA is monitoring the states’ 

funds to determine their viability as financial assurance mechanisms.

EPA, through the LUST Trust Fund, provides some limited support to states 

for cleaning up abandoned sites as well as for administering, overseeing, 

and enforcing their cleanup programs. The 5 states we 

contacted—California, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, and 

Pennsylvania—use differing approaches to ensure funding to clean up 

contamination from tank leaks. Three of these states—Maryland, Michigan, 

and North Carolina—are experiencing difficulties in funding cleanups of 

abandoned tank sites and officials of 2 of these states told us that available 

resources will be insufficient to clean up all of the abandoned tanks in their 

state.

4

EPA allocates LUST trust funds to states primarily on the basis of (1) whether the state has 

an EPA-approved program and (2) each state’s need, as measured by three weighted factors: 

the total number of tanks, the number of cumulative confirmed releases, and the percentage 

of the population using groundwater for drinking water. However, while the number of 

cumulative confirmed releases includes releases from abandoned tanks, the actual number 

of these releases is not separately taken into account in allocation decisions. 
Page 11 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

Tank Owners or Operators 

and State Indemnification 

Funds Generally Pay for 

Cleanups

Owners and operators are primarily responsible for cleaning up 

contamination from leaks in their underground storage tanks. However, 

according to the director of EPA’s UST Program, many of these 

owners/operators, most of which are small, independent businesses, do not 

have the financial capacity to pay for expensive cleanups. EPA estimates 

that the average remediation cost per site has been about $125,000, but 

costs sometimes have exceeded $1 million. Under RCRA, tank owners and 

operators must maintain evidence of financial responsibility for carrying 

out cleanup actions, using one or more of a variety of mechanisms, 

including commercial insurance, corporate guarantee, letter of credit, 

qualification as a self-insurer, or an EPA-approved state financial assurance 

fund. For commercial insurance, the owner/operator usually pays 

premiums as well as a deductible amount and/or co-payments before the 

policy begins to cover remediation costs up to some limit of coverage per 

leak incident. To assist owners/operators in funding cleanups, as of 

November 2004, 40 states had established state assurance or 

indemnification funds. State indemnification funds typically have 

deductible and co-payment requirements similar to those for commercial 

insurance, but these funds are managed by the state. Indemnification funds 

are usually capitalized through gasoline and diesel fuel taxes or fees paid 

by owners/operators registering or obtaining permits for underground 

storage tanks, as required. Any cleanup costs above the maximum coverage 

provided by insurance or the indemnification fund are borne by the tank 

owner/operator. A state fund qualifies as a financial assurance mechanism 

if EPA has approved it for that purpose. In deciding whether to approve a 

fund, EPA considers the certainty of the availability of funds for cleanup, 

the amount of funds that will be made available, the types of costs covered, 

and other relevant factors. 

The 5 states we contacted vary in their approaches to ensuring that 

contaminated tank sites are cleaned up and that tank owners/operators, to 

the extent possible, pay the remediation costs. Three of the 5 

states—California, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania—currently have 

financial assurance funds that reimburse owners/operators for cleanup 

costs under varying conditions. Maryland and Michigan have no such 

funds, and, instead, tank owners/operators rely primarily on commercial 

insurance to pay cleanup costs.

California: California's Underground Storage Tank program includes a 

state financial assurance program—the Underground Storage Tank 

Cleanup Fund—to assist tank owners/operators in funding site cleanups. 

The fund, established in 1989, is the state’s primary mechanism for 
Page 12 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

reimbursing owners/operators for their costs of cleaning up leaking 

underground storage tanks incurred after January 1, 1988. The fund is 

available to most owners/operators of tanks subject to EPA’s Underground 

Storage Tank Program, as well as owners of certain small home heating oil 

tanks. The California State Water Resources Control Board administers the 

fund, which is primarily capitalized through a storage fee—paid by owners 

of regulated and permitted underground storage tanks—for each gallon of 

petroleum placed in the tanks. According to board officials, the fund 

collects about $240 million annually and, except for $200,000 per year that 

is used for enforcement, monies from the fund are all used for tank 

cleanups, including such activities as direct cleanup by responsible parties, 

agency oversight, and replacement of drinking water wells. In fiscal year 

2004, California spent approximately $208 million to reimburse responsible 

parties for direct expenses incurred in cleaning up leaking underground 

storage tanks.

The fund reimburses tank owners/operators for cleanup costs up to $1.5 

million per incident for “reasonable and necessary” remediation costs.5

Claimants are divided into four classes: class "A" claimants do not have to 

pay a deductible before costs are reimbursed by the fund; class “B” and “C” 

claimants must pay the first $5,000 in eligible corrective action costs; and 

class “D” claimants are responsible for the first $10,000. An Underground 

Storage Tank Petroleum Contamination Orphan Site Cleanup subaccount 

was established as part of the fund in September 2004, capitalized with $30 

million ($10 million per year for 2005 through 2007) transferred from the 

fund to reimburse cleanup costs incurred in cleaning up abandoned 

contaminated urban brownfield sites. In addition to reimbursing 

owners/operators, state officials said that $5 million a year is transferred 

from the fund to a subaccount to address emergency, abandoned, and 

recalcitrant tank site cleanups. 

Board officials we interviewed told us that the fund is adequately 

capitalized and that they do not always spend all available funds each year. 

Nevertheless, these officials also said that the state is interested in ways to 

minimize program costs and is experimenting with pay-for-performance 

remediation contracts, which are now being used at 20 cleanup sites in the 

state.

5

The fund also reimburses third-party compensation claims for amounts awarded under a 

court-approved settlement, final judgment, or arbitration award for bodily injury or property 

damage.
Page 13 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

Maryland: Although Maryland has 2 trust funds that have financed certain 

cleanup activities, it does not have a fund that EPA has approved for use as 

a financial assurance mechanism. According to state officials, owners and 

operators primarily use commercial insurance to demonstrate financial 

responsibility. The state’s Oil Contaminated Site Environmental Cleanup 

Fund has provided limited cleanup assistance to owners/operators of 

federally-regulated underground storage tanks, among others. The fund 

provides funding of up to $125,000 per leak occurrence from underground 

storage tanks—subject to deductibles from $7,500 to $20,000—and is 

primarily capitalized by a fee of 1.75 cents per barrel of oil imposed at the 

first point of transfer into the state. However, the program stopped 

accepting applications for reimbursement from owners and operators of 

federally-regulated underground storage tanks on June 30, 2005. In 

addition, the Maryland Oil Disaster Containment, Cleanup, and 

Contingency Fund finances, among other things, state cleanup costs for 

abandoned sites.6

 Revenues for this fund, according to the fund’s fiscal year 

2004 annual report, are generated by a fee of 2 cents per barrel of oil 

transferred into the state. From July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004, this fund paid 

out about $3.5 million. 

Michigan: Michigan's state financial indemnification program for 

underground storage tanks was terminated in June 1995, because it had 

insufficient funds to pay existing and future claims. Since that time, tank 

owners/operators have been required to annually show proof of financial 

assurance to cover cleanup costs in order to operate in Michigan. Small 

owners/operators usually provide this proof by obtaining commercial 

insurance. The state has used a number of sources to fund limited cleanup 

work at underground storage tank sites, including the Cleanup and 

Redevelopment Fund, the Clean Michigan Initiative Bond Fund, the 

Environmental Protection Fund; State General Funds, and the 

Environmental Protection Bond Fund. Appropriations from these funds 

address soil, groundwater, and sediment contamination from all sources, 

including leaking tanks. Most of these funds are no longer available for new 

projects. According to state officials, in the fall of 2004, state legislators 

voted to establish a Refined Petroleum Fund that will be capitalized by a 

7/8 cent-per-gallon fee on refined petroleum products to be collected 

through 2010. This fund is expected to accrue approximately $60 million 

6

For releases occurring from improperly abandoned storage systems, the current 

landowner, and any person who owned, leased, or was otherwise responsible for a system at 

the time it was abandoned are responsible for cleanup costs.
Page 14 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

each year, a portion of which is expected to be used to clean up 

underground storage tank sites. A Refined Petroleum Cleanup Advisory 

Council was also established to provide the governor and legislature with 

recommendations on how to spend the fund’s revenues. State officials told 

us that the council is expected to recommend an increase in the 7/8 cent fee 

to implement its other recommendations. 

North Carolina: North Carolina has a state fund that acts as a financial 

assurance mechanism and that reimburses owners/operators for most of 

the costs for site assessments, cleanups, and damages related to leaking 

underground storage tanks.7

 This fund applies to leaks discovered after 

June 30, 1988, from commercial underground tanks containing petroleum. 

The fund is primarily capitalized by a 0.297 cent-per-gallon excise tax on 

motor fuel sales; a small part of the state inspection tax on motor fuel and 

kerosene; and annual tank operating fees. Under provisions of the fund, 

owners/operators of tanks that have upgraded corrosion, leak, and overfill 

protection pay the first $20,000 of assessment and cleanup costs and the 

first $100,000 in third party liability costs. The fund then pays all other 

cleanup costs deemed reasonable and necessary, up to $1 million, and an 

additional $500,000, with a 20 percent co-payment by the owner/operator, 

after which any remaining amount is paid by the owner/operator. The state 

paid approximately $21 million in reimbursements for tank assessment and 

cleanup costs from this fund in fiscal year 2004.

Because the balance of the fund was not sufficient to cover all obligations, 

in June 2002, the fund began operating from month to month, paying out 

funds on a first-come, first-paid basis. This action resulted in a significant 

backlog of claims with pending payments, according to the fund’s annual 

report. Consequently, EPA is currently monitoring North Carolina’s fund to 

determine its viability as a financial assurance mechanism. To address 

concerns about the viability of the trust fund, North Carolina officials are 

considering requiring tank owners/operators to use other forms of financial 

assurance, such as commercial insurance. 

Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania’s Underground Storage Tank Indemnification 

Fund was created by the state Storage Tank and Spill Prevention Act of 

1989, as amended, and is administered by the State Insurance Department, 

according to the fund’s 2004 annual report. The fund reimburses tank 

7

The state also has a second fund to pay for, among other things, the cleanup of 

noncommericial tanks, such as home heating oil tanks.
Page 15 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

owners/operators for reasonable and necessary cleanup costs for leaks that 

occur in regulated tanks on or after February 1, 1994, the date it began 

operation. The maximum amount of coverage under the fund is currently 

$1.5 million; however, for claims reported prior to January 1, 2002, the limit 

was $1 million, according to state officials. The aggregate limit is $1.5 

million for owners of 100 or less tanks and $3 million for owners of 101 or 

more tanks. The fund also covers bodily injury and property damage claims 

that arise from a leak, indemnifies certified tank installers, and provides 

loans to owners/operators for upgrading their facilities. According to the 

fund’s 2004 annual report, a claimant for reimbursement from the fund 

must be an owner or operator of a tank registered with the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection, and must report the claim to the 

fund within 60 days of the discovery of the release. Claimants must also pay 

the first $5,000 per tank of allowable cleanup costs and $5,000 per tank of 

third-party liability claims. State program officials told us that Pennsylvania 

law requires that the fund be managed on an actuarial basis and that the fee 

structure be reviewed yearly to maintain solvency. They also said that the 

fund's objective is to have positive cash flow and invested assets for a 

projected period of at least 5 years. The fund is primarily capitalized by (1) 

a 1.1 cents-per-gallon fee (for 2004) on substances such as gasoline, new 

motor oil, and aviation fuel, (2) investment income generated from fund 

balances, and (3) a capacity fee of 8.25 cents-per-gallon for substances such 

as diesel, kerosene, and used motor oil. 

While the fund does not directly cover costs for remediating abandoned 

tank sites, it is authorized to provide allocations to the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection—which manages the cleanup of 

contamination from these tanks—up to a maximum of $12 million annually: 

$5.5 million for general environmental cleanup, $5.5 million for 

catastrophic release, and $1 million for pollution prevention. Department 

officials told us that each year it must request funding from the fund’s 

board. The board then allocates funds to the department based on the 

fund’s ability to pay tank owners’ claims. State fund officials told us that the 

department has not requested the maximum allocation amount for the past 

several years, and in some years they have not spent the full amount of the 

money they requested. According to state officials, the fund collected $68 

million in 2004, and paid out $64 million. These state officials told us that 

the fund is fully capitalized and is working effectively with a balance of 

$215 million, as of May 2005. 
Page 16 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

The Leaking Underground 

Storage Tank Trust Fund 

Provides Support for State 

Programs and Abandoned 

Tank Site Remediation

In addition to the states’ funding sources and mechanisms, the LUST Trust 

Fund assists states in (1) overseeing and enforcing corrective actions taken 

by tank owners/operators and (2) cleaning up leaking abandoned tanks or 

tanks that require an emergency action. EPA allocates amounts from the 

trust fund to each state based on a number of criteria, such as the total 

number of tanks in the state, the number of confirmed releases, and 

whether EPA has approved the state’s program, among other factors.8

However, these criteria do not include the number and cleanup status of a 

state’s abandoned tanks. According to EPA program officials, states 

historically have used about two-thirds of the federal trust fund money 

allocated to them each year to oversee and support the cleanups paid for by 

state funds, tank owners/operators, and other financial assurance 

mechanisms, while the states have used the remaining one-third to directly 

pay for cleanups of abandoned tanks that are not covered by the other 

funding sources. 

As Table 2 shows, for the 5 states we contacted, the amount of funds that 

EPA awards from the fund and the portions of these funds the states 

allocate for cleaning up tank sites varies, as do the amounts of their own 

funds that they spend on leak cleanups.

8

A small portion of the total funds is allocated according to performance-based factors, such 

as the number of cumulative cleanups initiated and completed by each state. Of the 5 states 

we contacted for our review, 3—Maryland, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania—have 

EPA-approved underground storage tank programs and the remaining 2—California and 

Michigan—do not have EPA-approved programs. 
Page 17 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

Table 2: Five States’ Funding from EPA's LUST Trust Fund, the Amounts and Percentages of These Funds Used To Clean Up 

Tank Sites, and Estimated Amounts of Each State’s Own Funds Spent on Tank Cleanups, Fiscal Year 2004a

Source: GAO analysis of data obtained from EPA and individual states. 

a

Costs are for the states’ fiscal year 2004. Because states’ fiscal years differ, for Michigan, costs are for 

the period October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004; for the other 4 states, costs are for the period 

July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004.

b

States use the remaining portion of their LUST funds for administrative, enforcement, and related 

purposes. States do not always spend the entire amount of the funding awarded to them during a 

given year and may carry some portion of it over into subsequent years. 

c

These estimates may not include, among other things, personnel and regulatory oversight costs. 

The LUST Trust Fund’s contribution to state cleanup efforts is generally 

small compared to amounts paid by tank owners/operators, state 

indemnification programs, and other state mechanisms for cleaning up 

sites each year.9

 For example, in fiscal year 2004, EPA awarded $61.7 

million in trust funds to assist states’ leaking tank cleanup efforts.10

However, according to EPA, states, on average, spend a total of about $1 

billion to $1.5 billion each year on tank site cleanups. To illustrate, EPA 

program officials told us that for every federal dollar spent to clean up tank 

sites, states spend as much as $18 of their own funds. 

If cleanup costs paid by owners/operators were included, the actual ratio of 

dollars spent by other sources to federal dollars could be significantly 

Portion of LUST fund 

allocation used to clean up 

tank sitesb

State 

Amounts awarded to state

from LUST Trust Fund Amount Percentage

Estimated amount of

state’s own funds spent to

clean up tank sitesc

California $3,538,351 $2,257,026 64% $240,000,000

Maryland 1,376,825 1,336,825 97% 1,800,000

Michigan 1,750,000 528,596 30% 12,900,000

North Carolina 3,208,081 990,046 31% 21,300,000

Pennsylvania 1,487,152 0 0% 2,200,000

Total $11,360,409 $5,112,493 45% $278,200,000

9

Cleanups at federal facilities, tribal lands, or high priority abandoned sites that exceed the 

state's remediation abilities and/or resources potentially may involve large amounts of 

federal trust fund resources relative to the annual amounts provided to states.

10This amount excludes the $187,000 in annual grants awarded to each state to assist them in 

managing their underground storage tank programs. 
Page 18 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

higher than the 18 to 1 calculation provided by EPA. However, tank 

owners’/operators’ costs to remediate a site are difficult to determine since 

they are not always captured in state and federal records. While state 

records may include deductible and co-payment amounts paid by 

owners/operators under state programs, they do not typically include any 

costs these parties pay that are disallowed by the state. Furthermore, 

amounts that owners/operators pay in excess of program limits are not 

captured in state and federal data. For example, California program 

officials told us that a leaking tank site in Santa Monica contaminated the 

public water supply with MTBE, which is typically very expensive to clean 

up. While the owner/operator estimated that it may require $50 million to 

clean up the site, the state indemnification fund limits reimbursements for 

cleanup costs to a maximum of $1.5 million per tank per leak incident. As a 

result, the approximately $48.5 million in additional non-reimbursable 

costs paid by the owner would not be reflected in program records. 

Some States Believe That 

Funding From Available 

Sources Is Inadequate to 

Address All Sites With 

Leaking Abandoned Tanks

Some states’ indemnification funds and other resources may be insufficient 

to clean up all of the leaking abandoned tanks in their state. For example, 

according to a survey of states conducted for the Association of State and 

Tribal Solid Waste Management Officials in early 2005, claims for the 

reimbursement of cleanup costs exceeded the fund balances in 10 states.11

Of the 5 states we contacted, officials of 3—Maryland, Michigan, and North 

Carolina—told us that the state is experiencing difficulties in funding 

cleanups at abandoned tank sites. Furthermore, officials of 2 of these 

states—Maryland and Michigan—said that available resources will be 

insufficient to clean up all of them and that additional resource allocations 

11Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, A Summary of State Fund Survey 

Results (June 2005). In the survey, 10 states reported that they did not have sufficient funds 

available to cover their current tank cleanup costs. However, according to a Vermont official 

familiar with the survey, 1 of the 10 state funds that were experiencing shortfalls did not 

address federally-regulated tanks. Furthermore, he said that while the other 9 state funds 

may have had excess claims, most if not all, of these funds continued to receive revenue and 

pay claims. The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation conducts this survey 

annually for the Association of State and Tribal Solid Waste Management Officials an 

organization supporting the environmental agencies of the states and trust territories and, in 

particular, their hazardous waste programs; non-hazardous municipal solid waste and 

industrial waste programs; recycling, waste minimization, and reduction programs; 

Superfund and state cleanup programs; waste management and cleanup activities at federal 

facilities; and underground storage tank and leaking underground storage tank programs.
Page 19 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

from the LUST Trust Fund would help address these funding shortfalls and 

enhance the states ability to clean up leaking tank sites.12

Because of funding constraints, Maryland is now prioritizing and deferring 

cleanups of its abandoned tank sites. The state requires tank 

owners/operators to demonstrate financial responsibility to pay for 

cleanup costs, which they generally do by obtaining commercial insurance 

to fund cleanups of the state's nonabandoned tank sites. However, state 

officials are concerned that commercial insurance may not provide a 

dependable source of funding for tank site cleanups, because insurers have 

sometimes been reluctant to pay cleanup costs when leaks occur. For 

example, files for the Henry Fruhling Food Store site in Harford County, 

Maryland (see app. I), indicated that the site's owner/operator experienced 

problems in getting the insurance company to pay for cleanup costs 

because he could not prove that the leak occurred during the period of 

coverage. The absence of insurance funds to pay cleanup costs may lead to 

more abandoned sites—sites where the owners/operators are unable to pay 

the cleanup costs themselves—which will require the state to fund cleanup 

with its own funds or seek federal resources. State officials told us that, in 

the absence of increased allocations of federal trust funds, they asked the 

state legislature to approve an increase in Maryland’s special oil transfer 

fee to fund the state's tank cleanup needs. The state legislature 

subsequently approved the fee increase. 

Since Michigan’s indemnification fund was terminated in June 1995, 

because of insufficient funds to pay existing and future claims, tank 

owners/operators have been required to show proof of financial assurance 

to cover cleanup costs in order to operate in Michigan. Small 

owners/operators usually provide this proof by obtaining commercial 

insurance. However, state LUST program officials cited anecdotal evidence 

showing that insurance claims for remediation costs are frequently denied 

because it is often difficult to prove that the release occurred under the 

period of coverage. If the owner/operator cannot or is unwilling to pay the 

costs and these costs are not covered by insurance or some other form of 

financial assurance, the burden for cleaning up a site will fall on the state.

12While Maryland was experiencing a funding shortfall as of February 2005, state officials 

told us that they expected that current funding would be sufficient for cleaning up 

abandoned sites. 
Page 20 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

In addition, Michigan program officials told us that the state’s causation 

standard further exacerbates the funding problem for abandoned tanks 

because it requires that the state prove that the present owner/operator is 

responsible for a site's contamination before it can be held responsible for 

cleanup. Proving responsibility becomes difficult in cases where releases 

have occurred at some point in the past and ownership of the property has 

changed. If responsibility cannot be established, the state must then fund 

any cleanup of the site. In addition, state officials said that underground 

storage tank owners/operators acquiring properties after March 6, 1996, 

can limit their liability for pre-existing contamination by performing a 

baseline environmental assessment of the property—any contamination 

found at that point becomes the responsibility of the owner/operator who 

caused the contamination or the state if a responsible party cannot be 

identified. According to program officials, Michigan now has a backlog of 

9,000 confirmed releases from leaking underground storage tanks, an 

estimated 4,200 of which are at abandoned sites. State program officials 

estimate that it will require about $1.7 billion in public funds to remediate 

these 4,200 releases alone. However, according to these officials, resources 

available from all state sources are not adequate to remediate these 

releases.

North Carolina’s commercial trust fund can be used to assist 

owners/operators with cleanup costs and to assist landowners in cleaning 

up abandoned sites where the tank owner/operator cannot be located or is 

unwilling to perform the cleanup. In recent months, according to program 

officials, claims against the fund have exceeded revenues, causing 

timeframes for paying reimbursements to stretch out over a year. As a 

result, the state is now prioritizing sites based on relative risk and directing 

work only to emergency releases and those leaks that pose the highest 

risks that can be funded with available resources. 

While neither California nor Pennsylvania are experiencing significant 

problems funding cleanups of leaking tank sites, officials in both states said 

that they could use more federal funding for leak prevention initiatives and 

welcome the flexibility to use federal trust funds for that purpose, as 

provided by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

In an ongoing review, we are examining the scope and magnitude of states’ 

workload and funding needs for cleaning up contamination from leaking 

underground tanks. Specifically, for each of the 50 states, the District of 

Columbia, and 5 U.S. Territories, we are examining (1) how much funding 

is currently available for cleaning up contamination from leaking tanks, (2) 
Page 21 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

the extent to which tank cleanup funds have been used for purposes other 

than cleanups, if at all, and (3) what future revenues will be available to 

clean up contamination from leaking tanks. 

States Identify, Assess, 

and Clean Up Leaking 

Tank Sites Using 

Similar Means

States become aware of leaking underground storage tanks through a 

variety of methods, including owner/operator reports, complaints by local 

residents, incidental discovery during land redevelopment or removal of 

tanks for upgrading or replacement, and compliance inspections.13 Regular 

and frequent tank inspections also can detect new leaks—and potentially 

prevent future ones—before they can lead to serious environmental or 

health damage, and lessen or avoid the need for costly cleanups. Once 

contamination from leaking tanks is detected and confirmed, the 5 states 

we contacted generally use risk-based systems to prioritize sites for 

cleanup according to the immediate threat they pose.14 Whether funded by 

the tank owners/operators, state indemnification or other funds, or other 

means, states generally direct and oversee site remediation.15 However, in 

circumstances where a site presents an imminent threat, has no viable 

responsible party, does not qualify for funding under a state plan, or for 

which the magnitude of the cost and cleanup work is beyond state 

resources, the state may ask EPA to assume oversight responsibility. 

States Identify Leaking Tank 

Sites Through a Variety of 

Methods

Tank owners/operators are primarily responsible for identifying, 

confirming, and reporting any leaks that occur in their underground 

storage tanks and dispensing systems. EPA and the states have established 

a number of requirements that tank owners/operators must follow to 

ensure and facilitate the early detection of possible leaks. In this regard, in 

1988, EPA issued regulations governing leak detection, among other things. 

Under these requirements, tank owners/operators must notify the 

13Owners/operators might, for example, become aware of leaks when their tanks fail tank 

system (liquid and vapor) integrity tests and report such findings to the state. 

14In Michigan, a site’s redevelopment potential may also be considered. Furthermore, 

responsible party-lead sites (those not led by the state) in Pennsylvania receive funding 

from the state’s indemnification fund regardless of risk level.

15Of the 5 states we contacted, Michigan does not have direct oversight of owner/operator 

conducted cleanups. Rather the state requires that the owner/operator retain a consultant 

from an approved list to conduct the necessary investigations, file the required reports, and 

conduct the cleanup.
Page 22 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

designated state or local authority when they discover a release or when 

leak detection equipment indicates that a leak may have occurred. This 

notification must generally occur within 24 hours. Tanks must generally be 

monitored for leaks at least once every 30 days. 

Despite these requirements, leaks can remain undetected and/or 

unreported. According to state officials, owners/operators sometimes do 

not conduct proper inventory checks or leak detection procedures and may 

intentionally disconnect leak detection equipment. Also, tank tightness 

tests are imprecise and tanks can lose small amounts of pressure or 

vacuum during the test and still pass. Such small pressure leaks can result 

in large releases of the tanks contents over time. In some cases, tightness 

tests have failed to detect significant leaks altogether. For example, during 

investigation of the Tranguch Tire Service site in Pennsylvania, the state 

Department of Environmental Protection requested tank tightness test 

results for that facility as well as 3 nearby tank operating facilities. Even 

though test results showed that 3 of these facilities had passed their tests, 2 

of them were ultimately found to have leaking tanks, including all 6 tanks at 

the Tranguch facility (see app. I). In addition to problems in detecting 

leaks, some owners/operators fail to report suspected or actual leaks once 

they are discovered. For example, the tank owner/operator of the fourth 

facility in the Tranguch investigation did not provide tightness test results 

as requested but admitted that a leak had occurred at the site several 

months earlier that he had not reported. 

While owners/operators identify many leaks through established testing 

and monitoring procedures, EPA and officials of the 5 states we contacted 

told us that many leaks are discovered only when tanks are removed for 

replacement or closure. When tanks are replaced or facilities closed, in 

some states—such as California, Maryland, and Pennsylvania—a state 

certified or licensed environmental consultant or contractor removes the 

tanks, sometimes with state or local agency oversight. Other states, such as 

Michigan and North Carolina, do not require the contractor to be certified. 

In Michigan, however, any person who removes or installs a tank must have 

a million dollars in pollution liability insurance, according to state officials. 

As part of this process, soil samples generally are taken from the 

excavation and tested to determine whether contamination is present. 

However, leaks are often readily apparent because of the presence of liquid 

product (gasoline or diesel fuel) and/or strong fumes; state or local 

environmental or health agencies may discover leaking tanks when 

investigating homeowner complaints about such odors in their residences 

or gasoline contamination in their well-water. 
Page 23 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

Frequently, unknown and abandoned tanks are discovered when land is 

being excavated during property redevelopment. In these cases, states 

generally follow the same process of sampling and testing described above 

to assess contamination at the site. However, if contamination is found, the 

responsibility for cleaning up these sites differs from state to state. For 

example, in Pennsylvania, the new owner of the contaminated property 

would be responsible for cleaning it up, according to state officials. 

However, Michigan state officials told us that Michigan law limits the 

cleanup responsibility to those who actually caused the contamination. 

Therefore, the state would have to pay for the cleanup unless it could 

identify the party or parties who caused the contamination, which can be 

difficult.16 In general, cleanup costs for abandoned tanks where no owners 

or operators can be found usually become the state’s responsibility. 

Some States’ Inspection 

Rates May Have Limited the 

Timely Detection or 

Prevention of Leaks

In addition to other methods for discovering leaking tanks, state or local 

environmental agencies may detect leaking tanks or indications of possible 

leaks while inspecting facilities for compliance with regulatory 

requirements. EPA recommended that states conduct tank inspections at 

least once every 3 years. However, of the 5 states we contacted, as of 

mid-2005, only 2 regularly inspected their tanks as frequently as EPA 

recommended, according to state officials. State officials told us that 

California requires annual inspections of all tanks; Maryland inspected its 

state’s tanks every 3 years; Michigan generally inspected every 3 years, 

depending upon the location of the tanks and state inspection staffing 

levels; North Carolina inspected once every 4 or 5 years, due to funding 

limits; and Pennsylvania inspected at least once every 5 years.17

EPA reported that, as of September 2004, about 35 percent of the nation’s 

underground storage tanks were not in “significant operational 

compliance” with the applicable release detection and prevention 

requirements, indicating a need for greater emphasis on inspections. EPA 

and state officials agreed that regular inspections of underground storage 

16According to state officials, while this law makes it difficult in certain cases to identify 

liable owners/operators, it has been very successful in promoting redevelopment of 

brownfield properties—the new owners/operators who did not actually cause the release 

are not liable for cleanup and have an incentive to develop the property.

17According to state officials, Pennsylvania inspects tanks with total secondary containment 

at least once every 10 years. State officials also told us that Pennsylvania has drafted 

regulations that would require inspections to be conducted every 3 years.
Page 24 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

tanks provide the opportunity to detect new leaks before serious 

environmental or health damage can occur and potentially prevent future 

leaks. Even if performed on a regular basis, infrequent inspections may 

allow violations of leak prevention and other tank requirements to go 

undetected long enough for leaks to occur and contamination to spread, 

potentially resulting in environmental and health consequences and the 

need for costly cleanups. 

While more frequent inspections potentially could enhance preventive 

efforts, state officials in 4 of the states we contacted told us that increasing 

the frequency of inspections would require additional resources. Although 

EPA recommended inspections at least once every 3 years, EPA program 

officials recognized both the value of increased inspections and some 

states’ need for additional resources to conduct more frequent inspections, 

and supported providing more flexibility in the use of LUST trust funds for 

these purposes.

In 2001, after reviewing EPA's and states' efforts to enforce UST Program 

regulations, we recommended that EPA negotiate with each state to reach 

a minimum frequency for physical inspections of all its tanks and present to 

the Congress an estimate of the total additional resources the agency and 

states would need to conduct the inspection, training, and enforcement 

actions necessary to ensure tank compliance with federal requirements.18

In addition, to strengthen EPA’s and the states’ ability to inspect tanks and 

enforce federal requirements, we suggested that the Congress consider (1) 

authorizing EPA to establish a federal requirement for the physical 

inspections of all tanks on a periodic basis and (2) increasing the resources 

available to the UST Program, based on a consideration of EPA’s estimate 

of resource needs. We noted that one way to do this would be to increase 

the amount of funds the Congress provides from the trust fund and to 

authorize states to spend a limited portion of these amounts on inspection, 

training, and enforcement activities to detect and prevent leaks, as long as 

this did not interfere with tank cleanup progress. Generally consistent with 

18GAO, Environmental Protection: Improved Inspections and Enforcement Would Better 

Ensure the Safety of Underground Storage Tanks, GAO-01-464 (Washington, D.C.: May 4, 

2001). Our subsequent work confirmed and updated our 2001 findings: GAO, 

Environmental Protection: Improved Inspections and Enforcement Would Ensure Safer 

Underground Storage Tanks, GAO-02-176T (Washington, D.C.: November 1, 2001); GAO, 

Environmental Protection: Improved Inspections and Enforcement Would Ensure Safer 

Underground Storage Tanks, GAO-02-712T (Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2002); and GAO, 

Environmental Protection: Recommendations for Improving the Underground Storage 

Tank Program, GAO-03-529T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 5, 2003).
Page 25 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

our recommendations, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, among other things, 

generally requires inspections once every 3 years, increases amounts 

authorized to be appropriated from the fund, and authorizes these funds to 

be used for inspections, training, and other enforcement and prevention 

activities. 

States Use Risk-Based 

Assessments to Determine 

Cleanup Priorities

The 5 states we contacted all use risk-based systems to prioritize leaking 

underground storage tank sites for cleanup according to the immediate 

threat they pose to human health, safety, and/or the environment. 

• California prioritizes cleanup sites based on risk, with the highest risk 

sites remediated first. California uses many of the same procedures 

employed under the American Society for Testing and Materials’ (ASTM) 

risk-based corrective action process. This process has 3 tiers and tables 

to determine priority rankings. The highest priority is assigned to sites 

that pose a threat to human health and the next highest to those posing 

an environmental threat. Under this system, immediate threats are 

abated first and then sites with the likelihood of future impact are 

addressed. 

• Maryland uses a risk-based determination to prioritize both abandoned 

and nonabandoned leaking tank sites. For example, if contaminated 

well water is the primary threat involved, well samples are drawn and 

tested and the levels of the various compounds found are compared to 

EPA safe drinking water standards. Abandoned sites whose cleanup will 

have to be paid for by the state are remediated if they pose an immediate 

threat to public health. The cleanup of nonabandoned sites is paid for by 

the tank owners and operators and begins immediately regardless of 

threat level. 

• Michigan uses a modified ASTM four-tier classification system to 

prioritize sites according to their threat. The classification system 

ranges from class 1—an immediate threat to the public or 

environment—to class 4—no demonstrable long-term threat. Michigan 

also uses a risk-based assessment and corrective action process, based 

on the ASTM process, which allows contamination to remain on-site as 

long as it is possible to demonstrate that human health and the 

environment are adequately protected. 

• North Carolina prioritizes leaking tank sites according to three levels of 

risk: high, intermediate, and low. High risk sites are those that pose an 
Page 26 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

immediate threat to human health and the environment because, for 

example, a leak presents an explosion hazard from petroleum vapors or 

a release is within 1,000 feet of a drinking water well. Intermediate risk 

sites include those that contaminate or potentially could contaminate 

surface water, a wellhead protection area, or an area that recharges 

drinking water aquifers, or have groundwater contamination levels high 

enough that natural attenuation may be impeded. Low risk sites involve 

releases that do not fall into the other 2 categories or that pose no 

significant risk to human health or the environment. The state is now 

addressing only the highest risk sites and emergency releases, with the 

goal of moving them to the intermediate risk level. North Carolina also 

uses a risk-based assessment and corrective action process wherein 

more contamination can remain on site as long as adequate protection 

of human health and the environment can be demonstrated. For 

instance, the state groundwater standard for benzene is 1 part per 

billion, but cleanup to 5,000 parts per billion may be allowed if it can be 

shown that the remaining pollution poses no threat to human health and 

the environment. 

• Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection uses a modified 

ASTM system that classifies abandoned tank sites based on 4 priority 

levels. Priority 1 sites are those that pose an immediate threat to human 

health, safety, or sensitive environmental receptors; Priority 2 sites pose 

short-term (up to 2 years) threats; Priority 3 sites pose long-term 

(greater than 2 years) threats; and Priority 4 sites present no such 

demonstrable long-term threats. Pennsylvania does not generally 

prioritize responsible party lead cleanup sites addressed under the 

state’s indemnification fund—all eligible sites receive funding for 

cleanup and are required to follow the corrective action regulations, 

according to state officials. 

States Generally Direct and 

Oversee Remediation, but 

May Ask EPA to Lead or 

Support Certain Cleanups

Under RCRA regulations, tank owners/operators must notify the 

designated state or local authority when they discover a release or when 

leak detection equipment indicates that a release may have occurred. 

Owners and operators must then undertake appropriate cleanup action in 

accordance with the regulations. Environmental consultants, in 

collaboration with the state or local environmental agency, usually perform 

the site assessment, determine the technology and approach needed to 

contain and remediate the contamination, and implement and complete 

site cleanup. The method of cleanup selected is tailored to the specific 

characteristics of the site, including the probable pathways the 
Page 27 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

contamination will follow to threaten the soil, groundwater, and/or the 

health of surrounding residents. Depending on whether the contamination 

has reached the local groundwater, treatment methods can range from the 

removal and on-site treatment of contaminated soil to expensive on-site 

pump-and-treat and vapor extraction systems, activated carbon filtration 

systems for municipal water systems, and vapor extraction and water 

treatment units for nearby impacted or threatened homes and businesses, 

among others.

EPA seldom becomes directly involved in this process unless the site is 

located at federal facilities or on Indian reservations. However, states may 

ask EPA to lead or support the cleanup at sites that present an imminent 

threat, have no viable responsible party, do not qualify for funding under a 

state plan, or for which the magnitude of the cost and cleanup work is 

beyond state resources. For example, state officials asked EPA to assume 

the lead on cleaning up the Tranguch Tire Service site in Pennsylvania after 

they determined that site remediation costs would far exceed the state’s 

resources (see app. I). This leak involved the release of an estimated 25,000 

to 50,000 gallons of gasoline. The leaking fuel reached the aquifer and the 

contamination plume migrated off-site into the sewer system of the 

surrounding residential neighborhood. According to an EPA Region 3 

official, gasoline and gasoline fumes seeped into the basements of 20 to 30 

homes through the sewer system as well as into a nearby creek. After 

conducting an environmental investigation of the area, the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Resources required the owner/operator of 

Tranguch to begin site characterization and cleanup work. However, in 

1995, the owner of the Tranguch facility declared bankruptcy and the state 

assumed responsibility for characterizing the site and mitigating vapors in 

area homes. By March 1996, the state had spent $2 million on the site and 

did not have the funds that were going to be necessary to clean up the site 

due to its potential magnitude. According to state officials because of the 

emergency nature of the situation and funding problems, the state asked 

EPA to take over as the lead agency for remediating the site, which EPA did 

in late August 1996. To date, in addition to the amounts paid by the 

owner/operator and the state, the Tranguch site remediation has required 
Page 28 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

over $25 million in federal funding, primarily from the Oil Spill Liability 

Trust Fund.19

Conclusions While the data that states report to EPA on underground storage tanks 

provides the agency with information it can use to determine the overall 

trends and status of the UST Program, the lack of specific and complete 

data on known abandoned tanks limits EPA’s program oversight and its 

ability to efficiently and effectively allocate LUST Trust Fund resources. 

Without such information, neither EPA nor the Congress can readily 

determine the number of abandoned tanks requiring cleanup nationwide, 

whether this number is growing, whether states are initiating and 

completing or deferring work, and what the potential impacts on state 

resources and, ultimately, the LUST Trust Fund may be. Furthermore, 

although one of the primary purposes of the fund is to help states clean up 

releases from abandoned tanks, EPA currently allocates resources to the 

states without taking into account how many abandoned tanks each state 

has, how many are leaking, or how many are being cleaned up. All 5 of the 

states we contacted provide data to EPA on their abandoned tanks 

aggregated with other tank data and separately identify and report some 

limited information on abandoned tanks to EPA regional offices. Asking the 

states to separately identify information on all known abandoned tanks in 

the reports they currently provide to EPA should not pose an additional 

burden. In any case, we believe that requiring states to specifically report 

information on all known abandoned tanks would provide EPA useful data 

for overseeing the UST Program and more efficiently and effectively 

allocating LUST Trust Fund resources.

While the extent to which this situation exists nationwide is unknown, 

officials in 2 of the 5 states told us that the state’s present resources are 

inadequate to cover cleanup efforts. At the same time, the LUST Trust Fund 

has continued to grow through a continuing inflow of fuel tax revenue and 

accrued interest—reaching a balance of about $2.2 billion at the end of 

2004—with only about $70 million to $76 million (less than 4 percent of the 

19The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is a $1 billion fund authorized by the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990 to pay for (1) federal cleanup actions, (2) certain claims for uncompensated removal 

costs and damages, and (3) natural resource damage and restoration activities resulting 

from oil spills or the substantial threat of oil spills to the waters or shorelines of the United 

States. This fund is administered by the National Pollution Funds Center of the U.S. Coast 

Guard.
Page 29 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

total fund balance) allocated annually to support state programs. 

Furthermore, the EPA and state officials we contacted believed that greater 

emphasis on leak prevention activities, such as tank inspections, is 

necessary to detect compliance problems that can lead to future leaks and 

uncover physical evidence of leaking tanks so that states can respond more 

quickly, if warranted, to prevent or limit the potential health and 

environmental impacts on nearby communities. Moreover, the cost of 

taking measures to prevent a release is generally much less than the cost of 

cleaning up a release after it occurs. The underground storage tank 

provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 may lead to increased 

resources for cleanups of leaking tanks and stronger enforcement efforts 

that could prevent leaks and lead to the early detection of existing leaks, 

thereby reducing the need for costly cleanups. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To improve EPA's oversight of the leaking underground storage tank 

program and its ability to determine how to most efficiently and effectively 

allocate, LUST Trust Fund dollars to the states, we recommend that the 

Administrator of EPA require that states separately identify, in their reports 

to the agency, information on the number and cleanup status of all known 

abandoned underground storage tanks within their boundaries. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to EPA and the states of California, 

Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania for their review and 

comment. In commenting on the draft report, EPA stated that, in general, 

the agency thinks that the report’s findings and conclusions have merit, and 

that it will assess the feasibility of implementing our recommendation. EPA 

agrees that the UST Program could benefit from more specific information 

about abandoned tank sites. However, EPA notes that the process that 

states must conduct to establish that a tank is abandoned—that its owner is 

unknown or unwilling or unable to pay for leak cleanups—may involve 

ownership searches to identify the potentially responsible party and 

assessment of their financial ability and willingness to pay for cleanup.

With this in mind, EPA is concerned about placing an undue burden on 

states by requiring them to provide specific data on abandoned tanks. 

Therefore, EPA stated that, in consultation with the states, the agency will 

consider how best to incorporate our recommendation.

We share EPA’s concern about placing an additional burden on states by 

asking them to determine whether a given tank is abandoned by 
Page 30 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

undertaking a potentially labor-intensive and costly effort to establish who 

owns the tank and whether this owner is financially able and/or willing to 

pay for cleaning up a leak. However, we are not suggesting that states 

should make an effort to identify unknown abandoned tanks; rather we are 

recommending that they report to EPA separately the information they 

currently have on tanks that they know are abandoned, and, as new 

abandoned tanks are identified in the normal course of program 

operations, report this information to EPA as well. This should place no 

additional burden on the states. States currently provide EPA data on 

known abandoned tanks aggregated with all other tanks in the state. We are 

simply recommending that the states break out the data on their 

abandoned tanks from total tank data. Because a limited portion of these 

data—information on abandoned tanks being cleaned up using LUST Trust 

Fund resources—is currently broken out and provided to EPA’s regions, the 

UST Program could easily utilize these existing data and EPA would only 

have to require states to break out the remaining data on the number and 

cleanup status of their known abandoned sites. Having more complete data 

on abandoned tanks would allow EPA to better determine the potential 

scope of the problem and the progress that states are making towards 

addressing it. It would also permit EPA to take this information specifically 

into account in allocating LUST Trust Fund resources. Given EPA’s 

concerns, we have clarified our recommendation by explicitly stating that 

EPA should require states to provide separate data on the number and 

cleanup status of all their known abandoned tanks. EPA also provided 

technical comments, which we have incorporated into this report as 

appropriate. Appendix III contains the full text of the agency’s comments in 

a letter dated November 2, 2005.

Officials from the state of Maryland said that they had no comments on the 

draft report. California, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania 

officials provided a number of technical comments, which have been 

incorporated into the report where appropriate. In addition, Pennsylvania 

officials expressed concerns similar to those raised by EPA relating to the 

additional burden on states of identifying unknown abandoned tanks. As 

noted, we have clarified our recommendation to address these concerns. 

We will send copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees and to the Administrator of EPA. We will also make copies 

available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at 

no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Page 31 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

If you or your staff have any questions on this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-3841 or at stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who contributed to this report are listed in 

appendix IV.

John B. Stephenson

Director, Natural Resources 

 and Environment
Page 32 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

List of Congressional Requesters

The Honorable Susan M. Collins

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security

and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Rick Santorum

United States Senate

The Honorable Arlen Specter

United States Senate
Page 33 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of Apendxies

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites ApendxiI

The following are summaries of the major events surrounding the 

discovery and cleanup of contamination from leaking underground storage 

tanks at 5 sites: (1) Coca-Cola Enterprises in Yuba County, California; (2) 

Henry Fruhling Food Store in Harford County, Maryland; (3) Bob’s 

Marathon in Grand Ledge, Michigan; (4) R.C. Anderson Trust in Nash 

County, North Carolina; and (5) Tranguch Tire Service, Incorporated, in 

Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. The summaries include a chronology of 

significant site occurrences as well as additional information on the 

amount of leaked fuel, the contaminants involved, the impacts of the leak 

on the surrounding environment, the costs of remediating the site, the 

extent, if any, of EPA involvement in the cleanup, communication between 

state agencies and the affected public, and litigation relating to the site. 

Coca-Cola Enterprises, 

Yuba County, 

California

The Coca-Cola distribution warehouse on this site was built around 1970, 

and was originally used by another business to build mobile home units. 

The 5,000 gallon underground storage tank system from which the leak at 

the site occurred was reportedly installed on the east side of the building 

when the facility was first constructed. The property and surrounding area 

are zoned for commercial use. Yuba County Municipal Airport is located 

south of the site and a public drinking water supply well operated by the 

City of Olivehurst is located about 850 feet east of where the tank system 

was formerly located. 

Chronology of Key Site 

Events from the Case Files 

• June 1989 – August 1989: Coca-Cola Enterprises had the 5,000 gallon 

unleaded gasoline underground storage tank, piping, and dispensing 

system excavated and removed. The tank and piping appeared to be in 

good condition, but the soil exhibited a slight petroleum odor. 

According to the case file, soil samples were collected from beneath the 

system during removal, as required by California law. Field observations 

and analysis of soil samples determined that gasoline was present in the 

soil in concentrations that required remediation. The Yuba County 

Office of Emergency Services filed a report of an unauthorized leak. 

• December 1989 – May 1990: The site was assessed for contamination, 

which included a soil gas survey and the drilling and installation of 

borings, groundwater monitoring wells, and vapor extraction test wells. 

Groundwater samples were collected as monitoring wells were installed 

and an analysis indicated that the groundwater at the site was 

contaminated. A municipal drinking water supply well for the City of 
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 34 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

Olivehurst was discovered 850 feet east of the tank system’s former 

location. However, analyses of water samples from that well did not 

indicate any contamination. While the contaminant plume extended 120 

feet east of the release site, it was confined within the south and east 

boundaries of the property. 

• May 1990 – December 1990: The Yuba County Air Pollution Control 

Office authorized the on-site aeration of contaminated soils that had 

accumulated during drilling activities. The soil aeration began in June 

1990 and was successfully completed in September 1990. A quarterly 

groundwater monitoring and sampling program also began in June 1990. 

In August, a vapor extraction pilot test was conducted at the site. 

Petroleum was found in a monitoring well at the site in September and 

about 7.5 gallons of gasoline were removed from the well from 

September through November. By December, approximately 0.08 feet of 

gasoline remained in the well. 

• February 1991 – August 1991: The environmental consultant for 

Coca-Cola Enterprises submitted its contamination assessment report, 

which assessed the extent of vertical and lateral petroleum 

contamination at the site during the underground storage tank removal 

operations. The consultant also completed a remedial action plan that 

presented a conceptual system design for remediating hydrocarbon 

contamination in soil and groundwater at the site. The plan proposed an 

integrated remediation system incorporating (1) a groundwater pump 

and treat system with an air stripper system to remove volatile 

compounds from groundwater, (2) a vapor extraction system to remove 

vapors from contaminated soils in the unsaturated zone, and (3) a 

thermal oxidizer to burn off the vapors. The consultant estimated that 

remediating the site would take 3 years, with one additional year for 

monitoring and closure. Cleanup oversight was transferred from the 

Yuba County Office of Emergency Services to the Regional Board in 

February 1991, and in March 1991, the Board approved the 

contamination assessment report.

• April 1993 – September 1998: The recommended remediation system 

began operation in April 1993. In August 1996, an oxygen release 

compound was installed in three perimeter vapor extraction wells to 

increase the dissolved oxygen concentrations in groundwater to 

enhance the natural bio-attenuation of petroleum hydrocarbons. The 

pump and treat system was operated intermittently until mid-November 

1997, when the system was shut down to prepare for site closure 
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 35 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

following approval from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality 

Control Board. Groundwater monitoring and sampling continued on a 

quarterly basis. In September 1998, the Board approved initiation of 

closure activities. 

• October 1998 – Early 2000: Monitoring indicated that the 

contamination plume might have migrated southward in late 1999 and 

early 2000 and that further remediation and changes in the sampling and 

analysis program were warranted. The remediation system was 

restarted in December 1999, with upgrades to increase flow rates and 

optimize efficiency and was completed in January 2000. The revised 

sampling and analysis program was initiated shortly thereafter. A survey 

to identify water wells within 2,000 feet of the leak site conducted by the 

site’s environmental contractor identified 2 municipal wells, with the 

nearest approximately 850 feet east of the former tank location. 

However, sampling and analysis conducted by the Olivehurst Public 

Utility District revealed that the closer of the 2 wells had not been 

affected by the contamination plume. 

• April 2002 – March 2004: Because monitoring and sampling showed 

no hydrocarbon concentrations in the groundwater monitoring wells, 

the system was again shut down in April 2002. Quarterly groundwater 

monitoring after the system was shut down showed that the 

contamination plume had stabilized and, in July 2003, the site’s owner 

requested the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board’s 

approval to close the monitoring wells. The wells were abandoned by 

late December 2003, and the Board closed the remediation case in 

March 2004.

• Status as of August 2005: Cleanup was completed.

Summary of Key 

Information from the Case 

Files

• Contaminants and compounds of concern: Gasoline (total petroleum 

hydrocarbons as gasoline—TPHG), benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene, 

xylenes (BTEX) 

• Size of leak: Unknown.

• Impacts of contamination: Soil and groundwater contamination 

occurred at the site but was contained within the property. 
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 36 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

• Remediation cost: The California underground storage tank fund spent 

$1,202,745 to reimburse site owners/operators for site remediation 

costs. Additional amounts that may have been paid by Coca-Cola 

Enterprises that were not reimbursed are unknown.

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency involvement: None.

• Communication between responsible agencies and the public: No 

evidence of public meetings appears in the case files.

• Litigation: Case files show no evidence that any lawsuits were filed 

relating to this site.

Henry Fruhling Food 

Store, Harford County, 

Maryland 

The Henry Fruhling Food Store was a single family dwelling with an 

attached small grocery store. The store had two 1,000 gallon underground 

storage tanks and distribution systems for gasoline, which were installed 

around 1966, and a 500 gallon underground tank and distribution system 

for kerosene. Sometime prior to 1966, 2 similar underground gasoline tanks 

and distribution systems were located on the site but were removed by the 

previous owner.

Chronology of Key Site 

Events from the Case Files

• 1970: A nearby resident complained to the owners of the store about an 

odor or taste of gasoline in his well water. The tank maintenance 

company performed a pressure test on the tanks and distribution 

systems but found no leaks. 

• June 1980 - September 1980: Water samples taken by the Harford 

County Health Department in response to another nearby resident’s 

complaints about gasoline in his well water indicated petroleum 

contamination. That resident was warned not to consume water from 

his well and the matter was referred to the Maryland Department of 

Natural Resources (the predecessor of the Maryland Department of 

Environment) for action. That resident also filed a complaint with the 

department concerning the presence of oil in his well, which was 

referred to the Environmental Health Administration and the Harford 

County Health Department for follow-up actions. 

• October 1980: One of the store owners was badly burned—and later 

died—when gasoline fumes ignited in his basement. 
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 37 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

• November 1980: Water samples obtained by the Harford County 

Health Department identified gasoline in the store owner’s well and the 

case was assigned to the Department of Natural Resources for 

enforcement action. 

• January 1981 – February 1981: In mid-January, the Department of 

Natural Resources notified the company that had maintained the tanks 

and pumps since 1976 of their determination that a pollution violation 

had occurred. The Department ordered the company to (1) stop 

discharging petroleum products into state waters, (2) test the tightness 

of the tanks and supply systems, and (3) initiate actions to recover 

petroleum from groundwater at the site. In late January, tightness tests 

were performed on both tanks and supply systems and no leaks were 

found. In early February, the Department took auger probes at various 

locations throughout the Fruhling property and found explosive vapors 

in the soil in the vicinity of the tanks and pumps. In a letter dated 

February 27, the Department told the owners and the tank maintenance 

company that (1) they had achieved substantial compliance with their 

order and that no gasoline was then leaking into the groundwater, (2) 

based on information they had provided the Department, there was a 

“strong probability” that, at some time during the past several years, 

repairs had been made to the gasoline pump that may have eliminated a 

leak in the system, and (3) the results of the recent boring tests and a 

survey of the area indicated “a very low probability” that the gasoline in 

the groundwater was coming from any source other than the system at 

Fruhling’s store. Furthermore, the letter stated that the Department’s 

only concern was the removal of any recoverable gasoline from the 

groundwater at the site. 

• July 1981 – August 1981: A gasoline recovery and separator system 

was installed at the site and well-pumping operations began. The 

accumulated effluent from the separation process was sampled by the 

Harford County Health Department on a periodic basis and was spread 

back on the ground with the knowledge and approval of the County 

Health Department. This process continued through January 1988, at 

which time a Department of Environment official ordered the owner to 

stop the discharge.

• November 1981 – December 1981: The Department of Natural 

Resources notified both the store owner and the tank maintenance 

company that they had satisfactorily removed the gasoline from the well 

and complied with their January 1981 order. The Department also 
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 38 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

advised them that the remaining unrecoverable gasoline in the 

groundwater was a pollution problem that would be referred to the 

Harford County and state health departments for appropriate action. 

Because laboratory results of samples taken continued to show 

unacceptable levels of “aromatic hydrocarbons”, the County required 

the owner to continue well pumping until the residuals were reduced to 

an acceptable level. 

• May 1983: A nearby resident raised concerns regarding contamination 

of his well. Water samples taken over approximately the preceding three 

year period showed minimal contamination from petroleum products. 

• October 1987 - December 1987: Testing indicated that gasoline 

contamination was migrating into a new well at the site. 

• January 1988: In late January, an official from the Maryland 

Department of the Environment (formerly the Department of Natural 

Resources) investigated a complaint that effluent runoff from the site 

was flowing onto a neighbor’s property. The investigating official 

informed the store owner that spreading effluent on the ground was no 

longer allowed because this process allowed pollution to migrate back 

into the soil and groundwater. The owner was issued a site complaint 

and was directed to shut down well pumping operations until further 

notice. At this point, pumping and effluent discharge on the ground had 

gone on for over 6 years and the gasoline separation unit had been 

removed and water had been pumped onto the owner’s yard for the last 

2 years.

• June 1988: The state took over cleanup operations at the site after the 

LUST Trust Fund was established in 1988. Well-pumping from the old 

well at the store site continued intermittently until mid-1988. 

• October 1988: The Maryland Department of the Environment oversaw 

the removal of the underground gasoline and kerosene tanks and 

distribution systems, which was funded from the LUST Division 

account. Inspection revealed no gasoline storage tank perforations, but 

soil beneath one gasoline storage tank showed explosive readings. 

According to a state official who visited the site in early December 1987, 

the store owner stated that the tank maintenance company had pumped 

the tanks dry prior to going bankrupt, but she did not recall the exact 

date. 
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 39 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

• January 1989 – April 1989: The Maryland Department of the 

Environment contracted with an environmental consulting company to 

perform 2 soil gas surveys at the site to delineate the extent of 

subsurface gasoline vapor contamination. Analysis of the samples 

revealed the presence of elevated gasoline vapor levels at the site, with 

the highest concentrations detected near the former pump island. 

• Late 1989 to early 1990: The state installed charcoal filtration units 

on the store owner’s water system and that of a nearby neighbor. 

• March 1993 – November 1993: The Maryland Department of the 

Environment retained a consultant to review ongoing remediation 

activities at the site and determine the adequacy of activities to control 

and abate contamination. The consultant concluded that the 

contamination plume appeared to be getting larger and that vapor 

recovery efforts were inadequate. In November 1993, the Department 

had the consultant test a combined air sparge and soil vapor extraction 

system.1

 Test results indicated that this system could significantly 

enhance the existing recovery system.

• March 1997: The Maryland Department of the Environment continued 

to operate the pump-and-treat system at the Fruhling residence. The 

system had treated over 2 million gallons of water. The former Fruhling 

domestic well, shallow monitoring wells, and deep monitoring wells all 

continued to show elevated levels of dissolved gasoline constituents. As 

a result, the Department periodically operated a soil venting system to 

keep the wells within discharge guidelines. Periodic sampling of the 

surrounding residences identified no additional contaminated domestic 

wells. 

• 1999: The groundwater recovery system at the site was shut down. 

• September 2001: The Maryland Department of the Environment 

maintained a granular activated carbon treatment system at two 

residences and performed quarterly sampling at six residences. 

Petroleum contamination was still present at the Fruhling property and 

MTBE levels were detected at the residence across the street from the 

1

Air sparging involves the injection of air into petroleum-saturated subsurface soil or 

groundwater to convert dissolved hydrocarbons to vapor, which is then vented.
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 40 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

Fruhling property. Dissolved petroleum contamination levels had 

decreased at all sampling locations.

• Status as of August 2005: The site recovery system remained on site, 

but was turned off. The site was being monitored in operation and 

maintenance status, with sampling performed every three months. No 

significant contamination had been detected in the residential wells 

from which samples had been taken since July 2001. However, wellmonitoring still showed some signs of low-level contamination.

Summary of Key 

Information from the Case 

Files

• Contaminants and compounds of concern: Benzene, toluene, ethyl 

benzene, total xylenes, and MTBE.

• Size of leak: Unknown; Very little liquid product (gasoline) was 

recovered.

• Impacts of contamination: One death occurred from a leak-related 

explosion and fire. Groundwater and residential drinking water wells 

were contaminated with petroleum products. Real estate development 

and sales were impeded. Residents were granted a reduction in property 

taxes.

• Remediation cost: Maryland spent about $708,595 in state funds to 

remediate the site. Prior amounts that might have been spent by the 

company that installed the tanks and the store owner are not included. 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency involvement: None.

• Communication between responsible agencies and the public: In 

December 1989, officials of the Maryland Department of the 

Environment met with affected parties to discuss contamination at the 

Fruhling site. In May 1990, the Department held a follow-up public 

meeting to present the results of its initial investigation of the 

groundwater contamination. 

• Litigation: In late July 1981, one of the affected residents filed a lawsuit 

against the company that installed the tanks on the site, the tank 

maintenance company, and the store owner. Consequently, the tank 

maintenance company’s insurer retained a consulting company to 

investigate the alleged contamination of groundwater by the producer’s 

petroleum products. In May 1982, the consultant for the insurance 
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 41 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

company concluded that the products of the oil company represented 

by both the tank installer and the tank maintenance company were not 

responsible for the groundwater contamination in the affected resident’s 

well. In March 1988, the lawsuit was settled out of court for $25,000, 

with the defendants expressly denying liability. Prior to the settlement, 

the insurance company for the store owner settled with the affected 

resident for $7,500. 

In 1990, the owner’s insurance company denied responsibility for any 

claim under the owner’s policy. Nevertheless, in early 1991, the state of 

Maryland sued the owner to recover cleanup costs. 

In October 1990, a neighbor in the area of the site sued various parties 

involved in the purchase of his property, including the real estate 

company, the real estate agent, and the former owners of his house for 

not disclosing the groundwater contamination at the time of purchase.

Bob’s Marathon, Grand 

Ledge, Michigan

Bob’s Marathon is a gasoline service station and automobile repair shop 

bordered by mixed-use commercial and residential properties in the city of 

Grand Ledge, Michigan. Two reported releases occurred at the facility and 

the released gasoline migrated toward a municipal water supply well 

located directly down-gradient and very close (approximate 800 feet) to the 

site. MTBE, benzene, and other gasoline components from this spill 

potentially impacted the city’s water supply for about 8,300 people. 

Chronology of Key Site 

Events from the Case Files 

• April 1986: Bob’s Marathon registered all three of its underground 

storage tanks with the state.

• December 1991 – February 1992: Two of the three tanks failed their 

tightness tests. One of the owners reported to the Michigan State Police 

Fire Marshall Division that she had discovered a leak during a routine 

tank gauging inventory check. The leak involved the loss of 

approximately 4,500 gallons of gasoline from a 6,000 gallon tank. An 

environmental consultant retained by the owners sent the Michigan 

Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) the required 20-day report of 

initial abatement measures and installed eleven monitoring wells at the 

site in December. The monitoring wells were used to determine the 

directional flow of groundwater at the site and intercept the gasoline 

plume. In January, the consultant installed a product skimming system 
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 42 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

in six monitoring wells and a passive recovery system in three wells that 

reportedly contained product sheen on the water table and additional 

monitoring wells. Also in January, the consultant submitted a site 

investigation work plan, site characterization report, free product 

removal report, and interim corrective action plan to MDNR. MDNR 

concluded that the interim corrective action plan was unacceptable and 

provided the consultant with a list of concerns in a deficiency letter. The 

environmental consultant estimated that, by late February, 280,300 

gallons of contaminated groundwater and 1,200 gallons of gasoline were 

removed by the skimming system.

• March 1992: Because the consultant’s response to the MDNR 

deficiency letter was not adequate, MDNR did not approve the work 

plan. The consultant then recommended that a second consulting firm 

with a greater capacity to more cost-effectively manage long-term 

projects take over the work at the site. The new consultant submitted an 

interim corrective action plan and a site investigation work plan to 

MDNR for approval. MDNR approved the second consultant’s interim 

corrective action plan. In an interoffice communication, a MDNR official 

recommended that the first consultant be denied payment for work 

conducted at the site and that MDNR consider the consultant a 

potentially responsible party because of its failure to take timely action 

to abate the situation at the site. Three new underground storage tanks 

were installed on the west side of the service station building—two 

6,000 gallon tanks and one 15,000 gallon tank. Approximately 400 cubic 

yards of soil were removed and disposed of during excavation for these 

tanks. 

• April 1992: MDNR tentatively approved the site investigation work 

plan. The groundwater remediation system began operating. 

• June 1992: An MDNR official stated that the department approved an 

interim groundwater treatment system at the site because of the close 

proximity of municipal wells and that this action was necessary because 

of the first consultant’s failure to take timely action to abate the spread 

of the contamination. 

• January 1993: The company operating the groundwater treatment 

system decided to no longer operate and maintain it because of 

uncertainty regarding reimbursement from the Michigan Underground 

Storage Tank Financial Assurance program for future work.
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 43 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

• February 1993: The site owner replaced the second consultant with a 

third after a dispute over the need to purchase the remediation 

equipment and other issues. This third environmental consultant made 

modifications to the existing groundwater treatment system. 

• May 1993: MDNR informed the owners of Bob’s Marathon that they had 

failed to define the full nature and extent of the groundwater 

contamination. While the groundwater plume was advancing toward the 

Grand Ledge municipal well field, the leading edge of the plume had not 

yet been defined. Furthermore, MDNR said that the groundwater system 

was ineffective and the contamination plume continued to migrate, 

impacting additional groundwater. As a result, MDNR requested that the 

owners provide all information on the releases and investigations of the 

releases including all soil and groundwater response actions and 

investigations. MDNR conditionally approved the amended third 

consultant’s site investigation work plan. Approximately $850,000 of 

state financial assurance program funding had been spent at the site. 

• June 1993: An oil/water separator was added to the groundwater 

treatment system. 

• July 1993 – August 1993: The site’s third environmental consultant 

informed MDNR that, due to delays in payment from the state financial 

assurance program, it was unable to continue site investigation 

activities at the site. In light of this development, MDNR reminded the 

site owners of their obligation to conduct all appropriate corrective 

actions to remedy the environmental problems caused by the release of 

contamination at the site including eliminating any impacts to the Grand 

Ledge municipal well field. The owners’ attorney informed MDNR that 

the owners were unable to proceed with site investigation and 

remediation activities without the assurance of funding. In response, 

MDNR said that if all current claims were approved and paid by the state 

financial assurance program, the one million dollar limit for 

reimbursement under the program would have been reached at the site 

and the owners would be responsible for financing the remaining 

corrective actions including a final remedy. The Michigan Department of 

Public Health notified the city of Grand Ledge of MTBE contamination 

of a municipal water supply well. 
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 44 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

• October 1993: MDNR notified the owners that the site would be listed 

in the “Proposed List of Michigan Sites of Contamination” for fiscal year 

1995. 

• November 1993: A second leak of 400 to 800 gallons of gasoline was 

discovered and reported to the Michigan State Police. 

• December 1993: According to the third consultant’s initial abatement 

report, the second leak was discovered by the owner/operator when he 

noticed a strong petroleum odor in the site treatment building. When he 

opened the cover of equipment used as part of the cleanup system, he 

observed approximately one foot of gasoline. The owner then inspected 

the underground storage tank system and found a mixture of water and 

gasoline in the area of one tank, due to a pin-hole leak in a gasoline 

supply line. The leak detection equipment installed on the system—that 

should have detected the leak, sounded an alarm, and automatically 

shut off the system—was not functioning. The tank system was taken 

out of service until the perforated line could be replaced. 

• January 1994: The groundwater treatment building was damaged by 

fire. According to the fourth consultant’s investigation report, the owner 

had discovered gasoline in the equipment and a fire started, damaging 

the equipment, before he could remove it. (As of June 2005, the 

equipment had not been restored to service). 

• March 1994: MDNR advised the owners of their responsibility to repair 

the fire damaged system and conduct hydrogeological studies related to 

both leaks at the site. The owners responded that they could not 

continue the remediation work required to clean up the site and they 

terminated the services of the consultant at the site. MDNR assumed 

control of the investigation and cleanup of the leak at the site.

• April 1994: MDNR obtained emergency funds to complete the 

groundwater investigation and develop a corrective action plan. MDNR 

hired a consultant to update and collect additional information for the 

site with the overall goal of protecting the Grand Ledge municipal water 

supply from contamination originating from the site.

• December 1994: The city of Grand Ledge expressed concern that levels 

of benzene in a municipal well continued to increase, indicating 

continuing migration of contamination. The city asked MDNR for 
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 45 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

monitoring well test results and a report on the current status of the 

remediation by the end of the month. 

• February 1995: The mayor of Grand Ledge asked a state representative 

to intercede with state agencies to facilitate the issuance of all permits 

and release of state funds needed to allow the design and construction 

of soil vapor extraction and groundwater extraction and treatment 

systems to proceed immediately. 

• July 1995: Grand Ledge allowed access to the city well field to 

construct and maintain a water treatment system for the contaminated 

municipal well and a groundwater blocking well.

• December 1995: The system to treat well water contaminated with 

volatile organic compounds began operating and a barrier well was 

installed to prevent the plume from continuing to reach the municipal 

well. 

• Status as of August 2005: Treatment facilities were operating and 

cleanup was ongoing. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 

officials told us that the air sparge and soil vapor extraction systems 

were recently turned off to conduct performance monitoring but carbon 

treatment of the impacted municipal well was ongoing. According to 

these officials, they expected to complete site cleanup between 2007 

and 2010.

Summary of Key 

Information from the Case 

Files

• Contaminants and compounds of concern: Benzene, toluene, ethyl 

benzene, xylenes, and MTBE.

• Size of leak: The first release was approximately 4,500 gallons of 

gasoline; a second release was 400 to 800 gallons of gasoline. 

• Impacts of contamination: The leak impacted the water supply for the 

city of Grand Ledge and the city had to provide potable water to about 

8,300 residents. 

• Remediation cost: As of about March 2005, approximately $2,150,000 

had been spent to clean up contamination from the site. Approximately 

$950,000 of this amount came from the Michigan Underground Storage 

Financial Assistance Fund to reimburse costs incurred by the owner 

prior to the state taking over site remediation. According to Michigan 
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 46 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

Department of Environmental Quality officials, continuing efforts to 

clean up the site through 2007 to 2010 will involve additional costs of up 

to approximately $500,000. 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency involvement: None.

• Communication between responsible agencies and the public: None 

identified.

• Litigation: A number of lawsuits have been filed relating to the leak at 

Bob’s Marathon, according to Michigan environmental officials. An 

apartment complex east of Bob’s Marathon filed a lawsuit against the 

facility’s owners. In addition, the owners are involved in litigation with 

the first two consultants and have filed a lawsuit against the facility’s 

gasoline supplier, which is, in turn, suing the manufacturer of the hose 

that caused the site’s second leak.

R.C. Anderson Trust, 

Nash County, North 

Carolina

The R.C. Anderson Trust site was owned by R.C. Anderson from 1949 to his 

death in 1984, when the property was passed on to his heirs and was 

managed as a trust by a bank. Three businesses were located on the site—a 

gasoline station (abandoned), a tractor dealership (subsequently a 

furniture store), and an automobile repair garage. Contamination was first 

reported to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and 

Natural Resources (DEHNR) in July 1992, during removal and closure of 

the underground and above ground storage tanks and excavation of the soil 

around the tanks and pump island. Land uses in the vicinity are 

commercial, agricultural, and single family residential. 

Chronology of Key Site 

Events from the Case Files

• July 1992 – September 1992: In July 1992, three underground 

gasoline storage tanks and one above ground diesel tank were removed. 

Evidence of a gasoline release from a 3,000 gallon tank was discovered 

and reported to DEHNR. An August 1992 closure report also concluded 

that there was “high potential” of petroleum contamination on-site. 

Accordingly, in September 1992, DEHNR notified the bank that was 

acting as trustee for the R.C. Anderson property, that it was in violation 

of pollution control rules and regulations and must take action to 

comply with corrective action rules. 
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 47 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

• December 1992: The environmental consulting company completed a 

Comprehensive Site Assessment/Corrective Action Plan to assess the 

surrounding conditions and risks to area populations from the 

remaining contamination at the site. This report was filed to satisfy the 

requirements of the North Carolina law pertaining to investigations for 

soil and water cleanup. 

• May 1993: DEHNR reviewed the Comprehensive Site Assessment 

report, determined it to be inadequate and required the bank to submit 

(1) a more complete report which adequately identified the full vertical 

and horizontal extent of the contamination plume(s) and (2) a 

corrective action plan. Both reports were to be submitted by July 15, 

1993. 

• October 1993: The environmental consultant resubmitted the 

Comprehensive Site Assessment report to DEHNR for review. The 

report identified several sources of pollution affecting soils and 

groundwater at the site. One was a 3,000 gallon underground storage 

tank that had two large rust holes. Another source was the fuel pump 

island where stained soil was found when it was removed. In addition, 

the soil below the 10,000 gallon above ground storage tank (which had 

held diesel oil) was stained at the fill area from apparent spills during 

filling operations. The above ground tank itself, however, showed no 

evidence of leaks. Last, used motor oil was drained onto the ground near 

the gasoline station building when it was being used as a truck repair 

center. The area surrounding the site was surveyed for water wells, 

public water supply intakes, and off-site monitoring wells for potential 

receptors and migration pathways. Sixteen private water supply wells 

and another 32 “suspected” water wells were observed within a 1,500 

feet radius of the site. There were no public water supply intakes 

identified within one-half mile of the site and no off-site monitoring 

wells were found within 1,000 feet of the site.

• November – December 1993: Excavation and treatment began in 

1993. A smaller (530 gallon) underground gasoline storage tank was 

discovered during excavation of contaminated soil and removed. While 

the tank was located in an already contaminated area of the site and was 

rusted, it showed no sign of leaks, according to the consultant. A closure 

report on this tank dated the end of December was filed with the Raleigh 

Office of DEHNR. 
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 48 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

• January – December 1994: A second round of soil excavation with onsite bioremediation procedures was performed in 1994. In early March, 

the environmental consultant completed a Corrective Action Plan that 

included the excavation and treatment of contaminated soils and an air 

sparging and pump and treat facility for groundwater remediation. 

Under the plan (1) soil treatment was to be completed by August 1994; 

(2) a groundwater treatment system was to be installed by January 1995, 

and operated for 5 to 15 years; and (3) system shut-down and project 

completion dates would be based upon monitoring test results and state 

approvals. In late March, DEHNR approved the Comprehensive Site 

Assessment. In July, the Raleigh Office of DEHNR issued a soil 

contaminant and treatment permit. During 1994, soil excavation and onsite bioremediation procedures were performed on approximately 6,400 

tons of contaminated soil at the site. An estimated total of 11,792 tons of 

soil were excavated and treated on-site 

• January – December 1995: Following completion of the soil 

treatment, the environmental consultant monitored groundwater quality 

at the site and reported results on an approximate quarterly basis. The 

samples taken in October continue to show groundwater contamination. 

The contamination plume was estimated at approximately 230 feet by 

210 feet and expected to migrate slowly to the northeast. The reports 

continued to recommend the design and installation of a groundwater 

remediation system to remove the contamination present. 

• January 1996 – January 2003: Groundwater monitoring continued on 

a semi-annual basis. In 1996, North Carolina enacted a law temporarily 

suspending remediation work for low-priority underground storage tank 

release sites. The R.C. Anderson Trust site was initially given a lowpriority ranking and, therefore, remediation work at the site stopped. 

However, primarily because of the site’s threat to uncontaminated 

private domestic water supply wells, its ranking was changed to high 

priority in July 1997 and remediation activities resumed. The 

Containment and Treatment of Contaminated Soil permit originally 

issued In July 1994 by the Raleigh Office of DEHNR was renewed in 

1998. A groundwater remediation system using pump and treat with air 

sparge technologies was installed and began operation in late May 2002. 

Groundwater at the site was sampled 10 times through January 2003. 

According to the consultant’s Groundwater Monitoring Report dated 

September 12, 2003, as of January 2003, benzene, lead, MTBE, and 1,2-

dichloroethane were still present at on- and off-site monitoring wells in 

concentrations above North Carolina groundwater quality standards. 
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 49 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

However, according to DEHNR officials, benzene was not detected in 

any off-site monitoring well during that monitoring event and lead was 

detected in an off-site monitoring well but not above the NC 

groundwater standards.

• Status as of August 2005: According to state officials, North Carolina 

State Session Law 2004-124 suspended further work on most high risk 

sites due to constrained state funds. As a result, the state is now 

prioritizing sites based on relative risk and directing work only to 

emergency releases and those releases that pose the highest risks that 

can be funded with available resources. Initial treatment work was 

completed at the Anderson Trust site and the recovery system remains 

on-site but is currently shut down.

Summary of Key 

Information from the Case 

Files

• Contaminants and compounds of concern: Benzene, toluene, ethyl 

benzene, xylenes, MTBE, Naphthalene, and lead.

• Size of leak: Unknown.

• Impact of contamination: One residential drinking water well adjacent 

to the site was contaminated and abandoned. A potential threat of 

contamination exists for 17 additional residential wells within 1,500 feet 

of the site.

• Remediation cost: According to state officials, the North Carolina 

Commercial Fund has reimbursed the owner (including consultants) for 

$943,407.93 of reasonable and necessary expenses performed to 

remediate the site. In addition, total reimbursable expenses to complete 

cleanup and close the site are estimated by these officials at $1.1 million. 

However, this estimate does not include deductible amounts and other 

expenses not approved by the fund or otherwise deemed ineligible for 

reimbursement, such as contamination from the above ground tank or 

used motor oil paid by the R.C. Anderson Trust. 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency involvement: None.

• Communication between responsible agencies and the public: No 

evidence of formal public meetings was identified.

• Litigation: No information on lawsuits was found in the case files.
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 50 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

Tranguch Tire Service, 

Inc., Luzerne County, 

Pennsylvania

The Tranguch site was a gasoline and tire retreading service station in a 

mixed commercial and residential area of northeastern Pennsylvania that 

was abandoned in 1995. Several operating gasoline service stations as well 

as numerous abandoned or removed underground storage tank systems lie 

within the vicinity of the site. A residential neighborhood, part of which is 

built over an abandoned coal mine, surrounds the site. While it is unknown 

exactly when the underground storage tanks at the site began to leak, 

residents’ complaints of gasoline odors in their homes suggest that leaks 

may have begun sometime in the late 1980s to early 1990s. By 1993, the 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) 

determined that gasoline vapors from the sewer system were affecting 

homes. Although PADER found contamination at four other facilities in the 

vicinity of the Tranguch site, the department determined that the Tranguch 

facility was primarily responsible for the leak impacting the residential 

area. EPA estimated that the facility had released an estimated 25,000 to 

50,000 gallons of gasoline. The resulting gasoline plume contaminated soil 

and groundwater, and spread generally northeastward through the 

adjoining community to encompass about a 70-acre area, including 11 

businesses, two doctor’s offices, two churches, two parks, 26 vacant lots, 

and 359 residential properties and impacted the lives of up to a reported 

1,500 neighborhood residents. 

Chronology of Key Site 

Events from the Case Files

• Prior to 1990: Neighborhood residents near the Tranguch facility had 

complained of an odor from the facility that smelled like automobile or 

truck emissions as early as August 1976. However, an investigation 

conducted at the Tranguch facility at that time did not reveal any 

problems. Case files do not contain any additional complaints about this 

site until February 1990. 

• February 1990 – April 1993: Over the three-year period, PADER 

investigated complaints of gasoline or other odors in residences in the 

area of the Tranguch facility, including one home on three separate 

occasions. In March 1993, a local Department of Public Safety 

environmental protection specialist performed an investigation at this 

residence and verified the presence of strong gasoline odors. Because of 

the saturated condition of the soil, he was able to trace gasoline residue 

to a nearby abandoned underground storage tank facility. The 

environmental specialist referred the matter to PADER for follow-up. In 

April 1993, PADER took a water sample from the basement sump of this 

residence that tested positive for the presence of gasoline, and began 
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 51 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

efforts to determine whether nearby underground gasoline storage 

tanks were the source of the contamination. Out of eleven commercial 

locations in the vicinity, PADER identified four operating facilities—

including the Tranguch facility—and one abandoned underground 

storage tank facility as potential contamination sources. 

• May 1993 – June 1993: PADER directed the owner of the abandoned 

facility to register and either properly close (remove) or upgrade the 

tanks at that site. At this time, PADER also asked the owners of the 

Tranguch facility and the other two operating facilities to either provide 

the department with proof that their tanks passed tank tightness tests or 

conduct the tests.2

 The abandoned site owner notified PADER that he 

intended to close the site and PADER directed him to submit and 

implement a site characterization plan. Because none of the three 

operating facilities responded to the PADER request, it asked for this 

information a second time. 

• July 1993: The owner of one of the three operating facilities submitted 

a report to PADER showing that, in June 1993, tanks at the site had 

passed a tightness test. However, PADER discovered that the owner had 

installed this facility’s current tanks in 1991 to replace older tanks and, 

at that time, 1,042 tons of fuel-contaminated soil had been removed from 

the site. The older unregistered tanks remained in operation until they 

were replaced in 1991. The owner filed a closure report for these tanks 

in October 1993. PADER documentation indicates that the report lacked 

some of the required sampling and soil analysis information. 

Also in July 1993, the owner of another of the three operating facilities 

admitted to having had an unreported release in April 1993. Tanks at this 

site were subsequently removed. Three of these tanks had never been 

registered. Soil contamination was evident during excavation, and 

during the removal process an abandoned heating oil underground 

storage tank was also discovered at the site. Also, when the owner of the 

facility removed his tanks, PADER observed contamination at the site 

and the owner arranged for a site investigation/characterization.

2

At the time, many tanks were required to undergo annual tank tightness tests. 
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 52 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

• August 1993: PADER requested a third time that the owner of the 

Tranguch facility provide tank tightness test information and submit and 

implement site assessment and remedial action plans. PADER surveyed 

leak detection methods used at the Tranguch site and the owner stated 

that the facility was performing these methods. These methods were 

required to be performed under the state’s applicable rules and 

regulations in force at that time. PADER also requested that the owners 

of the other two operating facilities and the abandoned facility submit 

and implement site assessment and remedial action plans.

• September 1993: The owner of the Tranguch facility submitted 

information to PADER indicating that tanks at the site had passed a 

tightness test. PADER again requested that the Tranguch owner perform 

a site characterization and report the results to the department within 14 

days. Also, the local fire department received two additional complaints 

of gasoline-like fumes in area residences. PADER Emergency Response 

Program personnel also began regularly monitoring vapor levels in area 

homes.

• October - November 1993: Beginning in October, the PADER 

Emergency Response Program started to install interim remedial 

systems designed to prevent gasoline vapors from entering affected 

homes and, by mid-May 1994, had installed thirteen.3

 Also in October, 

PADER identified a fourth operating facility as a potential contributor to 

the area’s contamination and asked the owner of that facility to perform 

a site characterization. Through late November 1993, the owner of this 

fourth facility took no action in this regard, but requested to review any 

PADER documentation indicating that this facility had contributed to 

pollution in the area, as well as files regarding the other facilities in the 

area. Although PADER arranged for access to these files, the owner 

never reviewed them.

PADER confirmed the presence of gasoline-like fumes in six area 

residences and arranged to have a preliminary subsurface investigation 

performed on the area impacted by the contamination. The investigation 

revealed that gasoline had contaminated the groundwater at several 

locations down-slope from the Tranguch site and that gasoline 

contamination had spread to the neighborhood sewer system. The 

3

In commenting on our draft report, PADEP officials referred to these installations as 

remedial ventilation systems. 
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 53 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

gasoline contamination was also found to stop up-slope of the location 

of the Tranguch tanks, within the property boundary. PADER officials, 

representatives of the city of Hazleton, and the city fire chief met with 

the owner of the Tranguch site and requested that he immediately 

remove all gasoline from his tanks. The following day, the owner 

informed PADER that he had discovered that 375 gallons of gasoline had 

been lost from his tanks early in November. The owner admitted to 

PADER officials that—contrary to what he had told PADER in August 

1993—he had just started to comply with the required leak detection 

methods the previous day. Accordingly, PADER issued a second 

compliance order to the Tranguch site owner, requiring him to, within 24 

hours, remove all gasoline from the underground storage tanks on-site, 

begin cleaning up the leaked gasoline, and take steps to monitor and 

mitigate vapors in area homes. Although the owner appealed this order, 

he had his tanks and lines drained and began monitoring wells to 

recover gasoline. Furthermore, although the Tranguch site owner made 

inquiries regarding homes impacted by vapors, he took no action to 

monitor or mitigate vapors in area homes.

City personnel began venting the neighborhood sewer system. 

• December 1993 – February 1994: PADER held a public meeting with 

area residents, city and township representatives, and state legislators 

regarding the spill. School district officials, city and township 

representatives, and a state legislator were also contacted during 

subsequent site activities. 

In December, PADER issued a compliance order to the owner of the 

fourth operating facility suspected of contributing to the contamination. 

The order required a complete site investigation, including tank system 

tightness testing, a review of leak detection and inventory records, and 

sub-surface sampling and analysis of soil and groundwater at the site. 

The owner’s attorney responded with a letter stating his client’s intent to 

appeal the order, and included attachments with information in defense 

of his decision. From the information presented in the attachments, 

PADER determined that the owner had not employed any type of 

automatic leak detection devices on the two underground gasoline 

storage tanks installed at his site in 1962, and that he might not have
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 54 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

complied with applicable federal and state leak detection regulations.4

In January 1994, the legal counsel for PADER informed the owner that 

the information he had submitted was incomplete and did not satisfy 

the compliance order’s requirements. Later in January, the owner 

formally appealed the December compliance order. 

PADER documents indicate that problems with gasoline-like vapors 

entering neighborhood homes and commercial establishments grew 

progressively worse through the end of 1993 and, by early 1994, 28 

residences and 1 commercial building had been impacted. The Hazleton 

City Health Officer determined that a neighborhood home was unfit for 

human habitation and the owner temporarily relocated because of the 

presence of potentially harmful gasoline vapors and the explosion 

potential from the collected gasoline vapors in the basement of his 

home. (This homeowner had previously reported gasoline-like odors in 

his residence in February 1990, March 1992, August 1992, and March 

1993). 

In January 1994, all product recovery efforts at the Tranguch site ceased 

because of the owner’s failure to pay his environmental consultant, but 

resumed after he was able to secure a loan. 

• March – April 1994: Local residents formed an organization called the 

Group Against Gas (GAG) at about this time and announced plans for a 

class action lawsuit against parties responsible for the contamination. 

PADER received from the owner’s consultant a proposed Tranguch site 

characterization plan that included monitoring well locations. Upon 

review, PADER requested that the consultant perform additional site 

characterization work, including the installation of additional 

monitoring wells. Also, PADER notified the owner of the fourth 

operating facility of a June 1994 hearing date and the owner wrote to his 

state senator in an unsuccessful attempt to stay the PADER compliance 

order.

• May – August 1994: In May, PADER held a second public meeting with 

area residents, city and township representatives, and state legislators 

regarding the spill. Also in May, to avoid compliance proceedings, the 

owner of the fourth operating facility conducted a site investigation and 

4

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Preliminary Status Report of the 

Hazleton LUST Case, Area of 22nd and Church Streets, (October 1994), pages 71-72.
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 55 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

found gasoline in the groundwater near his underground storage tank 

systems. He withdrew his appeal of the compliance order, voluntarily 

removed all fuel from his underground gasoline storage tank systems, 

and sent a summary report of the investigation to PADER. In August, 

this owner notified PADER of his intent to conduct and complete a site 

characterization by the end of September 1994. 

An August court order required the Tranguch facility owner to take 

interim remedial actions to recover leaked fuel, monitor and mitigate 

vapors in area homes, and complete and report on site characterization 

by mid-October 1994. 

PADER obtained funds from the state Leaking Underground Storage 

Tank fund to conduct an extensive characterization study of the 

impacted area.

• February 1995 – September 1995: The owner had all six tanks at the 

Tranguch facility removed. Tanks were found to be perforated with “fistsized holes,” and gasoline contamination was evident at the site. The 

owner of the Tranguch facility declared bankruptcy. In addition, in May, 

the owner of the fourth operating facility had two tanks removed. Both 

tanks were found to be deeply pitted and the fill end of one tank had 

pinholes and corrosion that extended through the steel. Evidence of 

gasoline contamination was observed during the excavation. 

• November 1995 - December 1995: The Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP, formerly PADER) issued another 

compliance order to the owner of the Tranguch facility, who again 

appealed it. 

• March – July 1996: PADEP’s environmental consultant issued a report 

on, among other things, the sources of contamination in the area. While 

the consultant found contamination at all 5 of the sites, it found that the 

Tranguch facility was primarily responsible for the leak impacting the 

residential area. According to the consultant’s report, the contamination 

at the other four facilities did not significantly contribute to the 

contamination plume that was affecting the area residences. 

Although PADEP continued to monitor conditions in the area, it no 

longer had the funds necessary to mitigate the contamination threat. 

Therefore, PADEP asked EPA to lead the remediation of the Tranguch 

site and the impacted area. EPA took over as lead agency for the site, 
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 56 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

while PADEP continued to work with EPA by providing technical 

support.

EPA entered into an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE) for contracting services for the site. The first 

phase of a two-phase remedial action plan developed for the site, 

included soil vapor extraction of the source area and passive oil 

skimmers for collection of petroleum products.

• August – October 1996: EPA confirmed PADEP’s findings regarding 

the contamination plume. The EPA On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) 

determined that (1) gasoline contamination at the Tranguch site 

impacted surface waterways as well as groundwater at the site, (2) site 

conditions met or exceeded removal criteria described in the National 

Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), and 

(3) the site posed an imminent and substantial threat to the public 

health of residents in the area of the plume because of the threat of fire, 

explosion, and direct inhalation of benzene. The OSC estimated that 

over 900,000 gallons of gasoline leaked from the tanks. EPA requested 

remediation funds under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and received an 

initial $180,000 to begin removal actions, including installation and 

maintenance of two underflow dams on Black Creek to reduce the 

gasoline contamination which was entering the creek.5

 

EPA sampled and tested air quality in 53 of 362 homes in the area. The 

gasoline vapors detected in 52 of the 53 homes were below EPA’s 

benzene action level of 21.5 μg/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter). (The 

state action level at that time was 32 μg/m3

). The 53rd home while above 

21.5 μg/m3 was below 32 μg/m3 . In addition, not all of the 52 homes had 

elevated benzene levels. Furthermore, in the residence where benzene 

level was detected above EPA’s action level, EPA’s contractor had 

observed open cans of paint, stains, and glue to which they attributed 

these elevated levels . On this basis, EPA determined that remediation of 

these homes was not needed. 

In addition, EPA sent the owners of several facilities identified as 

“potentially responsible parties”—including the Tranguch facility—a 

“Legal Notice to Suspected Discharger” requesting remedial action. 

5

Oil Pollution Act funding is administered by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 57 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

• January – February 1997: A passive basement air filtration system in 

a home was changed to an active system because of a health threat.

• October 1997: EPA received approval to discharge treated 

groundwater from the Tranguch site remediation plant into the Hazelton 

sewer system. 

• November - December 1999: USACE constructed a soil vapor 

extraction system on the Tranguch site. 

EPA identified the Tranguch facility and three other businesses as 

parties responsible for the contamination based on a USACE 

groundwater flow model developed to predict the flow of spilled 

gasoline. According to the model, while much of the spilled material 

would have come from the Tranguch facility, some material from three 

other operating facilities would have mingled with the plume from the 

Tranguch leak and subsequently be transported to Black Creek. 

Furthermore, for part of the year, spilled material from one of the 

operating facilities would flow directly to the creek. However, EPA’s 

Region 3 General Counsel recommended that the agency not issue 

removal enforcement orders to these parties because it considered them 

to be “de minimis” (small volume) contributors to the contamination. In 

addition, since the Tranguch facility was in bankruptcy, EPA believed 

that Tranguch would not be able to comply with the order and, 

therefore, did not issue one. Consequently, Oil Pollution Act funds 

continued to be used to clean up the site. 

• February 2000 - September 2000: The Pennsylvania Department of 

Health, concerned over air sample results, asked EPA to install 

ventilation and continue testing air quality in 9 homes. EPA began 

installing sewer vents at homes.

EPA, USACE, state agencies and a state Representative held public 

meetings with area residents in July and August to discuss what 

corrective actions EPA would take at the Tranguch facility. An 

additional 72 residents (32 in July and 40 in August) requested sampling 

of the air in their homes. 

• October 2000: A public meeting was held to discuss site sampling, 

health issues, and site history for the Tranguch site and affected area. 

Officials from the (1) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

(ATSDR), (2) PADEP, (3) Pennsylvania Department of Health, (4) U.S. 
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 58 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

Coast Guard, (5) USACE, and (6) EPA were present, among others. 

More than 150 Tranguch area residents were also present. The USACE 

official stated that the site was complex because of the existence of an 

underground coal mine. During the meeting, residents voiced concerns 

about health and property values, ATSDR stated that long-term 

exposure to benzene (a gasoline component) had been connected to 

cases of leukemia, and officials agreed to look into the impacts of the 

contamination on property values in the area and the EPA 

representative noted that potential buyers of homes in the immediate 

area had to be informed about the contamination. Also, based on leak 

data from Tranguch’s tank tightness tests, he stated that 50,000 gallons 

or less of gasoline had leaked at the Tranguch site rather than the 

900,000 gallons originally estimated. 

• December 2000: The EPA Office of Inspector General received a 

hotline complaint alleging EPA mismanagement of the Tranguch site 

cleanup. 

• January 2001: Throughout Pennsylvania, the action level for benzene 

is 32 μg/m3

. However, according to EPA Region 3 officials, citing 

concerns over the limited information on the extent of the 

contamination, PADOH set a more conservative level for the Tranguch 

site of “non-detect”. In response, EPA identified 8.3 μg/m3

 as a reliable 

detection limit for benzene. After consultation with ATSDR, PADOH 

accepted this site-specific benzene level as being protective of human 

health. 

In an interview with a local newspaper, a GAG representative said that 

she hoped homeowners living within the affected area would be 

“bought out”. A city councilman proposed several resolutions for area 

residents, including a resolution to reduce temporarily the real estate 

assessments of affected homes to zero, relieving the affected 

homeowners from property tax payments. 

• February 2001: State and local elected officials held a public meeting 

to update residents affected by the Tranguch leak. According to a 

newspaper article, a local councilman told those in attendance that they 

had no alternative but to leave the area and that they should force 

federal officials to buy their properties and move them out of the area. 

The Hazle Township Supervisors commissioned a University of 

Pittsburgh health study using Township funds.
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 59 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

EPA continued to sample air in area homes and, as of February 2001, 

had sampled 308 of approximately 350 homes within the contaminated 

area. 

Luzerne County Commissioners adopted a resolution urging the Board 

of Assessment Appeals to eliminate property taxes for two years for 

properties determined by the federal government and appropriate 

agencies to be eligible for relief. 

According to a local newspaper article, one of the state’s U.S. senators 

wrote to the EPA Administrator and asked the agency to buy the homes 

of the area’s residents and the other U.S. Senator agreed to meet with 

the Administrator about the spill. 

• March 2001: EPA implemented weekly “Unified Command” meetings 

to keep all interested parties up to date and to provide EPA an 

opportunity to address issues and/or questions any of the attending 

representatives might have. While the primary members of these 

meetings were federal, state, and local officials, representatives from 

the Group Against Gas participated in the meetings as ex officio 

members. 

EPA requested and received an additional $11,500,000 in funding from 

the U.S. Coast Guard to install groundwater collection and soil gas 

extraction systems, as well as groundwater and soil gas treatment 

systems. This funding brought the Tranguch site cleanup ceiling to 

$25,698,188. 

The mayor of Hazelton, Pennsylvania declared the area affected by the 

Tranguch leak a local disaster emergency and Luzerne County 

Commissioners declared the area in a state of emergency. In addition, 

the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency was asked to 

determine if the area met criteria for being declared a disaster area.

• April 2001: On behalf of EPA, the USACE completed a remediation 

plan for the area sewer system and began work on a groundwater 

collection system, a soil vapor extraction/biovent system, and new 

storm and sanitary sewer lines.

A public meeting was held with affected Tranguch site residents. 

Officials from EPA, ATSDR, Pennsylvania Department of Health, and 

PADEP attended the meeting. 
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 60 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

A state elected official introduced a resolution in the state House of 

Representatives to declare the affected area a national disaster area and 

to purchase the homes of citizens within the affected area. The 

resolution was unanimously approved. 

In a letter to the Governor of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Emergency 

Management Agency (PEMA) stated that the impacted area did not meet 

the eligibility criteria to obtain disaster assistance from the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). PEMA recommended that the 

Governor not certify that a major disaster or emergency existed in order 

to request assistance from FEMA. Further, PEMA determined that the 

hazard-mitigation funding needed to “buy-out” (purchase the homes of) 

affected residents would be inadequate, based on eligible costs, to 

address this situation. Based on PEMA’s review, the governor denied a 

state buy-out for residents.

• May 2001: The local board of supervisors again declared a state of 

emergency for the area affected by the leak and granted property tax 

relief for the affected property owners. 

PADEP approved EPA’s permit to discharge treated contaminated 

groundwater into Black Creek. However, some residents questioned 

EPA’s remediation strategy. EPA and city, township, and school district 

attorneys met concerning Tranguch site cleanup. 

The Pennsylvania Department of Health began conducting a health 

study of area residents impacted by the leak.

• June 2001: An environmental consulting company retained by EPA 

completed a report on subsurface airflow modeling for the soil vapor 

extraction/biovent system. 

EPA saw to the installation of 288 sewer vents in area homes and 

allowed residents to use a suite and hotel amenities, such as the pool, at 

a local lodge to get away from the site construction noise. 

• August 2001: EPA’s Inspector General reported that (1) EPA managed 

the cleanup of contamination from the Tranguch leak adequately, but 

the agency could have better communicated with the local community 

and the Pennsylvania Department of Health; (2) a federal buyout was 

not warranted and that residents’ desire for a buy-out was based on an 
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 61 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

inaccurate perception of the threat posed by the leak; and (3) about $2.8 

million in remediation costs might not have been warranted.

The University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health 

completed a “Preliminary Findings” report that examined whether Hazle 

Township residents were at increased risk for cancer compared to that 

of Luzerne County residents and residents of Pennsylvania as a whole.6

The authors of the study stated that “these findings suggest that the 

incidence of leukemia and prostate cancer in the Hazle Township is 

increased compared to Luzerne County and the state of Pennsylvania”. 

While prostate cancer has been linked to such factors as age, race, 

family history and high intake of dietary fat, research literature has 

linked leukemia—in particular, acute myelogenous leukemia—to 

benzene exposure. However, the study authors could not definitively 

identify the gasoline leak as the source of the excess leukemia. 

• December 2001: EPA completed replacement/repair of the sewer lines 

in and around the plume of contamination. PADOH issued its health 

study report, which provided its recommendations for determining 

when indoor air monitoring would no longer be necessary. In effect, it 

reset the site-specific action level for benzene of 8.3 μg/m3

 back to the 

statewide action level of 32μg/m3

.

• January 2002: After EPA repaired the sewer lines, installed the vapor 

recovery system, and sampled indoor air in area homes, the agency 

determined that the air filters in homes were no longer needed. EPA 

transferred ownership of the carbon air filtration units to PADEP. 

PADEP provided these filters, plus additional ones, to residents 

requesting them, as well as electricity to run the filters, at no cost for 

one year.

• June 2002: EPA held a public meeting regarding the Tranguch site 

cleanup. Also attending the meeting were representatives from a U. S. 

Congressman‘s office and PADEP. The focus of the meeting was to 

answer questions about the property reports EPA had mailed or handdelivered to affected residents. However, EPA also answered questioned 

on plans to restore streets, ongoing health studies, and other 

6

Hazle Township Health Effects Study 1990-2000 Preliminary Findings, University of 

Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public Health, Department of Environmental and 

Occupational Health and Epidemiology, August 29, 2001.
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 62 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

investigations of the spill and its potential impacts. In response to a 

question on how long residents with carbon filters in their homes to 

purify their indoor air should run them, the EPA representative said 

“...based on the sampling that we’ve done throughout the community, 

there’s no reason to run those filters”. Following the meeting, according 

to a newspaper account, the EPA representative said that as long as 

environmental officials are capable of eliminating potential chemical 

exposure for residents, federal officials would not consider options to 

relocate affected area residents. 

The University of Pittsburgh completed data collection efforts for its 

health study, which was funded by a $100,000 grant from the 

Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development. 

• August 2002: The Luzerne County Board of Commissioners 

unanimously approved a resolution requesting the Luzerne County 

Board of Assessment Appeals to approve requests to reduce to zero 

value, for January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003, the real estate 

assessments of those properties that were adversely affected by the 

Tranguch gasoline leak, as determined by the federal government.

• September 2002: EPA requested and received an additional $600,000 in 

funding from the U.S. Coast Guard. This funding brought the Tranguch 

site cleanup cost ceiling to $26,298,188. 

• November 2002: A PADEP report on an evaluation of the abandoned 

mine under the area concluded that it had no significant environmental 

impact on the community.

• January 2003: Under contract with EPA, USACE found small amounts 

of petroleum contamination in one tunnel of the abandoned coal mine. 

PADEP discontinued support for the air filters in residences.

The local school district sent a letter to EPA asking for $44,000 in 

compensation for the economic loss resulting from not having use of 

the athletic field.

The University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health staff 

presented their preliminary findings of the Hazleton Health Effects 

study to the mayor of the city and the community at a public meeting. 

According to a local newspaper article, this study (1) included more 
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 63 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

individuals (451 compared to 207) and more households (190 compared 

to 84) than in the earlier “Preliminary Findings” study; and (2) found no 

statistically significant increase in overall cancer or leukemia incidence 

for the Laurel Gardens community of Hazleton residents in the area of 

the Tranguch site compared to the county and state populations. The 

study team, however, did stress that further investigation was 

warranted for both thyroid and brain cancer, according to the 

newspaper account. 

• February 2003 – March 2003: The local Board of Supervisors 

extended the state of emergency for the area impacted by the leak 

through March 10, 2003, and supported a “buyout” of affected homes by 

the federal government. The Luzerne County Board of Commissioners 

also declared that a state of emergency continued to exist.

GAG wrote to the governor asking that PEMA reevaluate the designation 

of the area as a disaster area, which had been denied earlier.

• April 2003: Local and national elected officials representing the area 

sent letters to the new governor, requesting a reevaluation of the 

previous governor’s determination on the area’s eligibility for being 

declared a disaster area. 

The Hazelton city council gave a property tax break to area residents 

impacted by the leak for the third consecutive year.

According to EPA officials, the local school district verbally requested 

that an athletic field in the affected area be restored. In addition, the 

local school district sent a letter to EPA requesting a meeting in May 

with the EPA on-site coordinator and USACE to discuss (1) 

compensation for loss of use of the athletic field, and (2) a lack of 

communication between EPA and the school district over the issue.

• May 2003: The federal government agreed to pay the local school 

district $120,000 for the restoration of the athletic field. 

EPA held a public meeting with attendees expressing concerns about 

the cleanup.

• July 2003 - September 2003: Citing health and property concerns, 

more than 250 Hazleton and Hazle Township residents petitioned for a 
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 64 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

congressional hearing into EPA’s response to and management of the 

leak impacting their community. 

• October 2003: PADOH completed a study showing that, of the twentytwo types of cancers and total cancers considered, only the incidence of 

leukemia and all cancers was significantly higher in the affected 

community than would be expected. However, according to the PADOH 

study, the relationship of leukemia incidence to the environment was 

unclear, only in rare circumstances can an occurrence be causally linked 

to a specific agent with certainty, and the mechanisms for the induction 

of cancer from benzene exposure are not clear.

The University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health 

completed a health study providing its final “Summary of Primary 

Findings” on area residents’ increased risk of developing cancer. This 

report summarized the university’s two previous studies that separately 

examined residents in the affected area of Hazle Township and the City 

of Hazelton. In addition, the study examined the total population of 

affected area residents by combining the Township and the City. The 

study also examined affected residents living in both locations classified 

into three potential exposure categories (high, medium, and low) based 

on the proximity of their residence to the underground gasoline plume. 

Most notably was the high exposure category of those living directly 

over or adjacent to the projected contamination plume. The study 

investigators concluded that while the combined population did not 

experience an excess of all cancers, a statistically significant excess of 

leukemia was observed. For the high exposure category, the study 

investigators concluded that the observed versus expected cases of 

leukemia was statistically significant, but that, because of the small size 

in this subgroup, these results should be interpreted with some caution. 

The study investigators made a number of recommendations including 

long-term systematic surveillance and screening for members of the 

potentially higher risk population.

The University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health staff 

completed their final report of the Hazleton Health Effects Study 1990-

2000. The study’s findings suggest that from 1990 to 2000 no statistically 

significant increase in overall cancer or leukemia incidence in the 

affected area of Hazleton with the exception of brain cancer in white 

males compared to the county and state populations for the period 1990 

through 2000. 
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 65 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

• December 2003: According to a local newspaper article, Laurel Garden 

residents impacted by the gasoline leak asked the Luzerne County 

District Attorney to investigate the case. In the request letter, the 

residents said that they believe they were “needlessly and recklessly 

endangered” by the owners of fuel stations in the vicinity of the 

impacted area, EPA, and PADEP.

• March 2004: In a letter to local officials, EPA stated that no further 

action would be taken to address contamination from the abandoned 

mine based on three factors: (1) the contamination did not appear to be 

from the Tranguch property, (2) the contamination did not have a 

pathway to surface waters, and (3) due to the small amount of 

contamination present, the vapors were not migrating from the mine 

location and therefore did not threaten nearby residents.

• July 2004: EPA remained the lead agency responsible for the Tranguch 

site, while PADEP agreed to provide operation and maintenance 

services for the groundwater and soil vapor extraction treatment 

systems. 

• Status as of September 2005: All leaking underground storage tanks 

had been removed from the Tranguch site and only residual 

contamination required remediation. In addition, cleanup efforts at all 

affected residential homes had been completed and well over 95 percent 

of total costs to clean up and monitor the site had been expended. 

Remediation activities to remove residual contamination are expected 

to continue for another 4 to 5 years, costing about $100,000 per year. The 

remediation system will be shut down periodically to monitor its 

effectiveness and determine whether mitigation goals for groundwater 

and soil contamination have been reached. This monitoring is expected 

to cost about $30,000 to $40,000 per year. The remediation system might 

need to be shut down a few times before the contamination threat can 

be considered mitigated and the removal project completed. However, 

once this determination is made, groundwater and soil gas (vapor) 

monitoring will permanently stop, all remaining monitoring wells 

(currently approximately 80 but likely will be less because some are 

expected to close every year depending on sampling results) will be 

closed (costing about $1,000 per well), the treatment system removed, 

and the underground piping abandoned in place.
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 66 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

Summary of Key 

Information From the Case 

Files

• Contaminants and compounds of concern: Benzene, toluene, ethyl 

benzene, and xylenes (BTEX). According to EPA officials, some methyltertiary butyl-ether (MTBE) was identified but was never considered a 

contaminant of concern. 

• Size of leak: An estimated 25,000 to 50,000 gallons of gasoline was 

released into the soil. 

• Impacts of contamination: The leaking gasoline contaminated soil and 

groundwater, entered into the sewer system through cracked pipes, and 

further spread generally northeastward through the adjoining 

community to encompass an area of about 70-acres, including 11 

businesses, two doctor’s offices, two churches, two parks, 26 vacant 

lots, and 359 residential properties.

• Remediation cost: According to EPA officials, about $25.2 million of Oil 

Spill Liability Trust Fund monies have been spent to date to clean up the 

contamination resulting from the Tranguch leak. In addition, according 

to state officials, Pennsylvania spent about $2 to $3 million in cleanup 

funds. The site owner spent an unknown additional—but relatively 

small amount—on cleanup. 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency involvement: EPA assumed 

responsibility for cleaning up the site at the request of PADER in 1996.

• Communication between responsible agencies and the public:

Pennsylvania state agencies and EPA either held or participated in at 

least nine public meetings and other forums regarding the Tranguch leak 

from 1993—when the leak was first confirmed—through 2003. In 

December 1993 and May 1994, PADER held public meetings with area 

residents, city and township representatives, and state legislators 

regarding the contamination. According to EPA officials, beginning in 

July 1996, EPA held meetings with local officials and public meetings 

with area residents and others to discuss plans for remediating the 

contamination at and around the Tranguch site and to update the status 

of the cleanup. Through May 2003, EPA held at least five such meetings 

and participated in at least one meeting sponsored by GAG. The 

meetings often included representatives from the state and other federal 

agencies—such as USACE—involved in cleanup operations, among 

others.
Appendix I

Information on the History and Status of 

Cleanup Activities at Five Underground 

Storage Tank Sites 

Page 67 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

• Litigation: Nearby residents affected by the contamination sued 

numerous parties, including the owners of the gas stations in the vicinity 

of the leak as well as certain oil companies, asserting that the 

contamination had caused personal injury and property damage, among 

other things. These lawsuits are still pending.
Page 68 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

Appendix II

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApendxiI

The objectives of this review were to identify (1) information available on 

the number and cleanup status of leaking underground storage tanks, (2) 

existing sources of funding for cleanups at contaminated tank sites, and (3) 

processes used to identify, assess, and clean up sites in 5 states with large 

numbers of leaking tanks—California, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, 

and Pennsylvania. In addition, to provide some perspective on how leaking 

underground storage tank sites are identified and cleaned up, we are 

providing information on the history and cleanup status of one leaking tank 

site in each of these 5 states.

To identify information available on the number and cleanup status of 

leaking underground storage tanks, we reviewed and evaluated data from 

EPA’s underground storage tank program semi-annual activity reports for 

the period from March 31, 2001 through March 31, 2004. Each activity 

report contains data on the number of active and closed tanks, confirmed 

releases, cleanups initiated and completed, and cleanup backlog for the 50 

states, 5 territories, and the District of Columbia, arranged by EPA region.1

 

To assess the reliability of the EPA data, we interviewed EPA program 

officials at headquarters and in Regions 3, 4, 5, and 9; conducted electronic 

(logic and other) reliability testing of the data itself; and obtained and 

reviewed EPA’s responses to questions designed to determine the reliability 

of the data. In addition, we compared the semiannual data reported by EPA 

1

According to EPA, “confirmed releases” are identified by the incident, not the receptors. 

For example, 10 contaminated residential wells would be considered one release if the 

contamination was caused by a leaking tank at a single gasoline station, even if more than 

one tank at the station was leaking. However, if tanks at three different gasoline stations 

leaked, three confirmed releases would be recorded, regardless of the number of receptors. 

The number recorded by EPA represents the cumulative number of incidents where an 

owner/operator has identified a release from a regulated petroleum underground storage 

tank system, reported the release to the state/local or other designated implementing 

agency, and that agency has verified the release. “Cleanups initiated” records confirmed 

releases for which the state or responsible party has evaluated the site and initiated (1) 

management of petroleum-contaminated soil, (2) removal of free product, (3) management 

or treatment of dissolved petroleum contamination, or (4) monitoring of the groundwater or 

soil being remediated by natural attenuation; or for which the state has determined that no 

further actions are currently necessary to protect human health and the environment. The 

number reported by EPA represents the cumulative number of releases for which some 

physical remediation activity has begun, unless the state has determined that no such 

activity is necessary. “Cleanups completed” represent the number of confirmed releases 

where cleanups have been initiated and conducted to the point that the state determines 

that no further actions are needed to protect human health and the environment. The 

number reported by EPA is the cumulative number of cleanups completed. “Cleanup 

backlog” is the number of confirmed releases minus the number of cleanups completed. 

The five territories are (1) American Samoa, (2) the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana 

Islands, (3) Guam, (4) Puerto Rico, and (5) the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Appendix II

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 69 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

with data provided by the states we visited. In general, we found only 

minor discrepancies during our reliability testing of the data. For example, 

the Maine and Massachusetts semi-annual data for the period ending March 

31, 2002, were inadvertently switched. Once we brought this to EPA’s 

attention, it was immediately corrected. We also found that EPA reported 

1,000 less closed tanks and 1,000 more active tanks than reported by the 

state of Pennsylvania. The state had initially provided EPA data on the 

number of closed tanks as of September 30, 2004 but the following day 

provided EPA a correction to this amount. However, EPA inadvertently did 

not update its records to reflect this correction. While acknowledging 

these problems, we have determined that the reliability of the semi-annual 

data is adequate for the purposes used in this report. 

To identify funding options available for cleaning up contaminated tank 

sites and the processes used for identifying, assessing, and cleaning up 

leaking tanks by 5 states with large numbers of leaking tanks, we discussed 

possible funding options with EPA officials, conducted structured 

interviews with state program officials, and reviewed documents provided 

by these officials or located on their internet sites. To select which states 

to include in our review, we used data from EPA’s semi-annual activity 

report and applied it to our selection criteria and picked the five states 

having the highest combined score. Our selection criteria consisted of the 

following five quantitative indicators: 

• states with the largest average number of active tanks for the last 3 

years; 

• states with the largest average number of confirmed releases for the last 

3 years; 

• states with the largest average number of backlogs for the last 3 years;

• states with the largest increase in backlogs during the last year divided 

by the number of active tanks for that state; and 

• states with the largest increase in new tank releases for the last year 

divided by the number of active tanks for that state. 

Three of the five indicators used 3-year average data to minimize the 

impact of single-year fluctuations and to reduce the effect of state officials’ 

periodic revisions to the data. Two of the five indicators included 

adjustments for the number of active tanks in the state so as to reduce the 
Appendix II

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 70 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

possible selection bias in favor of states that have large numbers of active 

tanks.

For each indicator, we assigned a numerical score corresponding to its 

ranking compared to the other states. For example, because EPA data 

indicated that California averaged the most releases over the last three 

years, we assigned it a score of 56 out of a possible 56 points; alternatively, 

because American Samoa averaged the least number of releases over the 

last three years, we assigned it a score of one.2

 To determine a state’s total 

ranking for all five indicators, we added the scores for each state across all 

indicators and ranked each from highest to lowest. 

As a final step in our state selection process, we reviewed the 5 states with 

the highest quantitative score to ensure that, taken as whole, these states 

(1) were geographically diverse, (2) had different EPA regional offices 

overseeing their LUST programs, (3) included states with and without EPAapproved LUST programs, and (4) included states with and without LUST 

assurance funds. This process resulted in our including California rather 

than Ohio. While both states had the same quantitative score, including 

California, in our opinion, increased geographic diversity and added a 

different regional office to our selected states.

To provide information on the history and cleanup status of one leaking 

underground storage tank site in each of the 5 states, we identified the 5 

sites—Coca-Cola Enterprises, Yuba County, California; Henry Fruhling 

Food Store, Harford County, Maryland; Bob's Marathon, Grand Ledge, 

Michigan; R.C. Anderson Trust, Nash County, North Carolina; and Tranguch 

Tire Service, Incorporated, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania—interviewed 

state program officials responsible for overseeing or managing the cleanup 

at these sites, reviewed case files, and visited each site. In identifying these 

sites, we first selected the Tranguch site because of congressional interest. 

For comparison with Tranguch, we selected the remaining 4 sites primarily 

on the basis of the following similarities to that site:3

2

The total number of possible locations was 56, including the 50 states, 5 territories, and the 

District of Columbia.

3

As a secondary factor in selecting sites, we took into account travel costs. This was 

necessary because remediation site files are not normally maintained on-site, state 

underground storage tank program managers are usually not co-located with incident case 

managers responsible for overseeing the cleanup, and the sites themselves can be located at 

great distances from the underground storage tank program managers. 
Appendix II

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 71 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

• Cleanup was either completed in 2004 or is relatively close to 

completion based on total estimated costs; 

• Remediation costs significantly exceeded the average cost of cleanup of 

about $125,000; and 

• The risk priority ranking for remediation was above normal. 

Specifically, we selected each of the 4 remaining sites as follows:

• Coca-Cola Enterprises n Yuba County, California: From California’s 

GeoTracker database, we obtained a list of about 3,400 closed sites—

that is, sites where cleanup has been completed—and identified the 10 

most expensive cleanup sites for further investigation. The Coca-Cola 

site had the highest risk rating among those sites closed since January 

2004, and while all of the remaining 9 sites were more costly than the 

Coca-Cola site, the cost differential was not significant and all had the 

same or lower risk ratings. 

• Henry Fruhling Food Store in Harford County, Maryland: For site 

selection, we obtained a list of 39 sites from Maryland’s Oil Control 

Program, administrating the state’s underground storage tank program. 

Because Maryland does not track cleanup costs for sites being 

remediated by responsible parties, these were all sites with state-lead 

cleanups. In addition, they were sites still undergoing remediation, 

because the state has not closed a site within the last 2 years. From this 

list we selected the Fruhling Food Store site primarily based on its high 

cost and high risk. This site was the most costly to clean up and had a 

high risk ranking, having impacted residential water supplies. 

• Bob's Marathon in Grand Ledge, Michigan: We obtained a list of 68 

sites with remediation costs of at least $250,000 from Michigan’s 

Department of Environmental Quality, administrating the state’s 

underground storage tank program. Because Michigan does not track 

cleanup costs for sites being remediated by responsible parties, these 

were all sites with state-lead cleanups. We selected the Bob’s Marathon 

site primarily based on its high cost and high risk. Bob’s Marathon was 

the most costly of sites that were either completed or nearly completed 

and was high risk because it impacted municipal water supplies and the 

community. 
Appendix II

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 72 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

• R.C. Anderson Trust in Nash County, North Carolina: We obtained a 

list of 108 sites with remediation costs of at least $250,000 from North 

Carolina’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 

administrating the state’s underground storage tank program. We 

selected the 4 sites with the highest remediation costs for further 

analysis. From these 4, we selected the R.C. Anderson Trust site 

primarily based on high risk and high cost. This site was the only site 

ranked high risk because of its potential impact on nearby water wells 

and on the community. While this site was the least costly of the four 

high-cost sites, the cost differential between this site and the highest 

cost one was only about $24,000. 

We conducted our review from August 2004 through November 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 73 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

Appendix III

Comments from the Environmental 

Protection Agency ApendxiI
Appendix III

Comments from the Environmental 

Protection Agency

Page 74 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection
Page 75 GAO-06-45 Environmental Protection

Appendix IV

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiIV

GAO Contacts John B. Stephenson (202) 512-3841

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition, Vincent P. Price, Michael J. Rahl, and Michael S. Sagalow made 

key contributions to this report. Important contributions were also made 

by John W. Delicath, Wilfred B. Holloway, and Richard P. Johnson.

(360483)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548